Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, while the process has been difficult, this rule is worthy of support, and the underlying bill is a test of our will to solve the cataclysmic challenge of our time: global warming. This rule and this bill give us many tools, from fuel efficiency to alternative fuels to renewable energy standards. They also incorporate thoughtful, thorough appliance efficiency standards reported on a bipartisan basis by the Commerce Committee and previously enacted by this House. As co-author with Fred Upton of the light bulb provisions, let me underscore how important they are. In this bill, we ban, by 2012, the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent bulb, which emits 10 percent of its energy as light and wastes the remaining 90 percent. Sounds like this House. We phase out remaining inefficient bulbs by 2014, and by 2020 light bulbs will be three times more efficient, paving the way for the use of superefficient LEDs manufactured in the U.S. by 2020. Mr. Speaker, it takes 18 seconds to change a light bulb and even less time to vote ``aye.'' Importantly, the bill gives the Department of Energy the authority to craft a rule to give the lighting industry the flexibility to sell a range of bulbs, but there are protections. The rule must save as much energy as a flat requirement that all bulbs be 3 times more efficient than today's bulbs. And if DOE doesn't get its act together, the flat requirement will automatically became law. Though I believe that Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (CFLs) are an important technology, the intent of these standards is that at no time will CFLs be the only lighting choice available to American consumers. The bill also requires that DOE find ways to minimize the amount of mercury in CFLs and provides incentives for high-efficiency lighting to be manufactured in the United States. I would like to thank Senators Bingaman, Boxer and Congressman Upton (who has been my partner in all things light bulbs) for their tireless work on these provisions. Finally, I'd like to thank Jay Hulings, my Legislative Director and Committee staff--notably John Jimison on the House side, and Deborah Estes on the Senate side--for their long hours and dedication to getting this job done.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me and commend her for her leadership on this legislation, along with Mr. Rohrabacher. In 2 months in Congress, you have hit the ground running, and we're all very proud to serve as your colleagues. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution congratulating the Port of Los Angeles on its 100th anniversary. When I first came to Congress in 1992, the Port of L.A. looked far different than it does today. It wasn't quite the sleepy port of 100 years ago, with mule-driven trains and wooden ships. It was a regional presence. But today it is the largest container port in the United States and part of the fifth busiest container complex in the world. It supports over 250,000 jobs at the port and adjacent communities and nearly 1 million jobs worldwide. It is an economic powerhouse whose importance to Southern California and the Nation cannot be overstated. In recent years, the port has taken great strides to address the challenges that come with being a major port in the 21st century. It has dedicated millions to ensuring the quality of life for the surrounding communities, many of which are located in my congressional district. It has also taken on groundbreaking environmental initiatives to reduce the air pollution that it generates. Maybe most importantly, 100 years ago there was no such thing as a maritime security strategy. Today, the issue is of paramount importance, and the port has been a national leader. In the hours after the September 11 attacks, port officials, the Coast Guard, and local law enforcement executed a pre-approved plan that quickly and efficiently secured the port. The planning, communication and execution we saw that day became the inspiration for many of the security initiatives that have come since, including the SAFE Port Act, which I coauthored with my California colleague, Dan Lungren, and which became law last year. As I mentioned, Congresswoman Richardson deserves enormous appraise for her leadership on an issue that was very timely but which the rest of us had overlooked. I don't think this resolution would have come to the floor without her initiative. And it really is a big deal to the San Pedro community. I look forward to working with her as her partner when we celebrate the next 100 years. We may be feeble, but we will be here. And at this time, I would like to insert into the Record an article from today's edition of the Daily Breeze. [From the Daily Breeze, Dec. 5, 2007] Port of Los Angeles Marks 100 Years Since Its Creation (By Art Marroquin) San Pedro Bay had been struggling as a port for nearly a half-century, but the mud flats surrounding the inland harbor failed to excite railroad magnate Collis P. Huntington. So rather than run his Southern Pacific Railroad down to San Pedro, Huntington bought more than 200 acres in Santa Monica in the hope of bolstering his vision for a ``Port Los Angeles.'' He built a wharf that extended 4,720 feet into the Pacific Ocean, attracting more than 300 cargo ships during its first year in 1893. ``He wanted people to think his port was close to Los Angeles, when in fact it wasn't,'' said Ernest Marquez of West Hills, who chronicled Huntington's efforts in his 1975 book ``Port Los Angeles: A Phenomenon of the Railroad Era.'' ``If he was successful, then the region's economy would have been at the mercy of Southern Pacific and that would have been disastrous,'' Marquez said. While Huntington tried to get his Santa Monica port recognized as the official harbor for the Los Angeles region, efforts were already under way to bulk up the port in San Pedro. U.S. Sen. Stephen M. White, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and Los Angeles Times Publisher Harrison Gray Otis believed the port should be a city-operated enterprise and pushed efforts to build a ``Port of Los Angeles'' in San Pedro Bay. ``Those men saw potential for the mud flats in San Pedro,'' Marquez said. ``They believed the harbor could be developed by lots of digging and dredging.'' To a lesser extent, interests in Redondo Beach and Playa del Rey had tried to enter the fray, but those efforts quickly fell by the wayside, setting the scene for an epic battle that became known as the ``Free Harbor Contest.'' Congress established the River and Harbor Act of 1896, which created a commission to decide whether federal funds should go to Santa Monica or San Pedro. Three years later, Congress put its money on San Pedro and breakwater construction began a short time afterward. ``There was no way a harbor of this magnitude could have been developed in Santa Monica because there are too many cliffs on the beach, and it was wide open to the ocean,'' Marquez said. ``San Pedro was favored because the harbor went inland and protected ships from the open seas.'' The city of Los Angeles then annexed a 16-mile strip of land to connect to the port in 1906. The communities of San Pedro and Wilmington were annexed three years later. The city's newfound ownership of the port gave rise to a new harbor commission, a three-member panel appointed in 1907 by then-Mayor A.C. Harper. The 100th anniversary of the harbor commission's creation will be marked during a celebration at 4 p.m. Sunday. The bash will include historical displays, refreshments, boat shows and a performance by Taiwan's Evergreen Symphony Orchestra. A fireworks display is set for 7 p.m. The first commissioners--George H. Stewart, Frederick William Braun and T.E. Gibbon--regularly met in downtown Los Angeles and made ``big news'' during the rare occasions they traveled about 20 miles south to San Pedro, according to Geraldine Knatz, executive director for the Port of Los Angeles. The panel didn't have a budget and its members often had to pay for expenses out of their own pockets, she said. ``When the voters approved the annexation and bond improvements for port improvements, the money went to the Board of Public Works, not the harbor commissioners,'' Knatz said. ``It got so bad that all the commissioners resigned in disgust by 1913.'' The first harbor commission faced many of the struggles that persist today, such as building new infrastructure and bolstering regional economic development, Knatz said. ``When you read through the meeting minutes from 100 years ago, you learn that nothing really changes,'' Knatz said. ``There will never be enough money, you'll be lobbied by different interest groups, and you'll always have to deal with residents who live near the port. It's always going to be hard.'' The port has come a long way since those early years, with the arrival of cargo container ships in 1937, the advent of towering gantry cranes during the late 1960s and, more recently, an environmental push aimed at reducing diesel emissions from ships and trucks. About 15.8 million cargo units passed through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach last year, accounting for more than 40 percent of the nation's imports. That number is expected to double by 2020 and nearly triple by 2030, according to local economist John Husing. Additionally, some 500,000 people in Southern California are employed directly and indirectly by port-related businesses, Husing said last month. ``The port is a vital part of our national economy, but it is just as important locally, providing good jobs for generations of local residents,'' said Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, whose 15th District includes the port. To remain competitive, the port must continue to grow while also keeping the environment in mind, Husing said. Several shipping companies operating at the Port of Los Angeles are studying expansion options that call for environmentally friendly accommodations, such as AMP technology that allows container ships to ``plug in'' to a generator and operate on electrical power while docked, rather than idling on their diesel engines. China Shipping was the first company to use the technology at the Port of Los Angeles, resulting in the elimination of 300 tons of pollution-forming nitrogen oxides since 2004, according to port officials. ``Growing green is imperative if any kind of expansion is going to happen,'' Knatz said. ``It's always difficult to be out front on these issues, but we can't afford to be a follower.'' Indeed, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach approved a clean air plan in 2006 aimed at reducing emissions by 50 percent over the next five years. The ports are poised in 2008 to roll out the plan's first provisions, including a so-called Clean Trucks Program that calls for replacing or retrofitting about 16,000 diesel- spewing big rigs with cleaner-burning vehicles by 2012. ``The time has come for us to truly commit to cleaning up our air and limiting emissions from the port,'' Hahn said. ``It is my hope that working together, we can finally have both a productive and efficient port, but also clean and healthy communities.''

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend his service on the Rules Committee and his long service, much of which I shared, on the House Intelligence Committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill. Many in this House, including me, have worked over years to get surveillance right. This bill does a good job, a far better job than the bill reported last month by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Protecting America from the real threat of additional attacks requires the strongest possible tools. It also requires a flexible, agile and constitutional set of authorities to guarantee that those who do the surveillance clearly know the rules and obey them and that Americans who may be targeted have appropriate safeguards. This legislation arms our intelligence professionals with the ability to listen to foreign targets, without a warrant, to uncover plots that threaten U.S. national security. The bill also protects the constitutional rights of Americans by requiring the FISA Court, an article III court, to approve procedures to ensure that Americans are not targeted for warrantless surveillance. I have reviewed the changes to this legislation made by the manager's amendment. This amendment makes the bill stronger in two important ways: First, it clarifies that nothing in the bill--repeat, nothing-- inhibits the ability to monitor Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction or any terror group or individual who threatens our national security. Second, and this is a point that was just addressed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), it clarifies that nothing, nothing, in the bill extends any rights to people who are not in the United States legally. Undocumented aliens, people who aren't citizens or have overstayed their visas receive no rights under this bill. Some may try to scare us into thinking otherwise, but they're just wrong. The bill does not change current law, and this is a point that may have been overlooked by the gentleman from Michigan. It does not change current law regarding the surveillance of undocumented aliens. Since 1978, FISA, which was enacted in that year, has extended fourth amendment protections to persons legally in the United States. The Protect America Act, which the Republican minority in this body supported in August and which was enacted into law that month, continues that same definition. The Protect America Act defines the coverage of the bill just the way this legislation does. We're not changing the coverage of U.S. persons as defined in 1978 and since under the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Mr. Speaker, terrorists won't check our party registration before they blow us up. Security and liberty are not a zero sum game. The RESTORE America Act will protect the American people and defend the Constitution. Vote ``aye.''

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think this has been an interesting debate. I have sat through every minute of it. During the debate on the rule, I spoke for this bill and for the rule; and now I speak strongly against this motion to recommit. As you have already heard, it is redundant. We have inserted language in this bill that takes care of the problem. In the manager's amendment, language was added at the request of the Blue Dogs, and I am proud to be a co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition, and that language specifically refers to terrorist organizations, and the Revolutionary Guards are one such organization. So I would like to say for two reasons there's no need to support this motion to recommit: one, it kills the bill by using the word ``promptly''; number two, it is redundant with excellent language that we added to the bill in the manager's amendment. As I have said before, this is not a zero sum game. We don't get more security and less liberty or more liberty and less security. We either get more of both or less of both. These amendments carefully restore, it's called the RESTORE Act, the balance of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress wisely passed 20 years ago. Vote for this bill and against the motion to recommit. We will restore that balance. Parliamentary Inquiries

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, one need look no further than the chaos in Pakistan or the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan to understand that troop levels in Iraq cannot be maintained--and that the surge, which I have always opposed, has done nothing to achieve political stability. Today, with this bridge funding vote, Congress signals to the White House yet again that enough is enough, that the combat mission in Iraq must end, and that we will force that change. No one in this chamber questions the courage or commitment of our brave women and men in uniform or their willingness to tackle any challenge put before them. But we have sent them on an ill-defined mission with no apparent end point, and which consumes staggering amounts of our talent and treasure at the expense of countless other priorities. This bill also redresses a glaring loophole in the Military Commissions Act--a bill I strongly opposed. By requiring that all U.S. Government agencies and personnel must adhere to interrogation techniques contained in the Army Field Manual, we send an unmistakable signal to the rest of the world that the United States--the world's oldest functioning democracy--does not permit cruel, inhumane and degrading practices, or torture, and complies fully with Federal law banning torture and our international obligations. The Iraq Troop Redeployment Bill is good policy, and long overdue.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I believe in free and fair trade. Trade creates jobs in the United States and helps build our relationships with countries around the world. But not all trade agreements are created equal. That is why I evaluate trade agreements on a case-by-case basis. I voted against NAFTA in the face of enormous pressure from my own party, and against CAFTA because I felt it suffered from the same flaws as NAFTA. I stand by those votes and believe that subsequent events have proven them to be sound. But on carefully reading the Peru FTA is worth supporting. This FTA makes real strides in protecting workers and the environment, and the key is that core ILO standards and adherence to multilateral environmental agreements are enforceable obligations. For example, this means that Peru cannot violate the Convention on Marine Pollution or allow employers to use temporary contractors to substitute for striking workers. If it does, the United States can bring a case against Peru, and just like the other provisions of the agreement, the case could end with Peru being subjected to sanctions. This gives these provisions real teeth. Chairman Rangel has secured the protections many in my party have demanded. I urge us to take ``yes'' for an answer.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, during my years in public office, I have had the pleasure of meeting and working with many extraordinary constituents committed to a seemingly endless array of good works and causes. None has served their community more ably and admirably than my dear friends Ed and Marilyn Fitzgerald, recent recipients of the prestigious YMCA ``Good Neighbor'' Award. The Fitzgerald's volunteerism and decades-long service to the needy, to members of the Armed Forces and area veterans, and to the communities of Lomita, Wilmington, and San Pedro--all located in my Congressional District--make them richly deserving of this recognition. I first met them years ago when their daughter Sharon applied to the Air Force Academy. Sharon received my top recommendation, and attained the rank of Captain before leaving active-duty to be a full-time mother. To this day, Ed and Marilyn are members of my Academy Nominating Committee. Although technically retired, Ed and Marilyn have never stopped working, and probably log more volunteer hours than most people put in at the office. Whether it is teaching children to read at Taper Avenue School, or distributing food and clothing to the homeless at Beacon Light Mission, the Fitzgeralds do not waver in their efforts to help those less fortunate. Not content to help only with the basics, the couple also organizes movie and museum excursions for kids, whale watching trips, and other activities inner-city kids might not have a chance to experience. The active military and veterans' communities in Los Angeles County-- among the Nation's largest--have also benefited from the Fitzgerald's advocacy. Both volunteer at the Long Beach Veterans Hospital, transporting immobile veterans to and from doctor's appointments, and both devote hours of their time to helping the many veterans, including homeless veterans, in the Harbor Area. They reach beyond helping their neighbors by raising awareness nationally on behalf of America's POWs and MIAs. And I only recently learned of Marilyn and Ed's fundraising campaign to gather and ship audio-video equipment to our troops in Iraq. Separation during wartime can severely affect morale--a problem the Fitzgeralds believe our soldiers and their families should not have to endure. With Sharon's husband serving in Iraq, this tireless twosome is even working on a better way to correspond with family members stationed overseas. Madam Speaker, other communities have selfless people like Marilyn and Ed. But I am grateful to them every time we meet. They are true patriots.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding to me, and I thank my ranking member, Mr. Reichert, for his generous remarks. Madam Speaker, on 9/11 we were attacked by foreigners who had come to this country legally. The next time and, sadly, I believe there will be a next time, my assumption is that many who attack us will already be here, and some will be U.S. citizens. Homegrown terror is a phenomenon many countries are scrambling to understand, including the British, as they are under major threat from it. Theirs is a peculiar kind with a large Pakistani population that is not well assimilated. But America has a problem too, unique in nature, and we fail to understand it at our peril. Far from being immune to the danger of homegrown terror, think Timothy McVeigh or Theodore Kaczynski, the threat today is infinitely greater and more likely to be influenced by events in the Middle East or by the larger struggle against radical Islam. What causes an individual or group to, first, coalesce around a set of radical principles or a charismatic leader, activities permitted by our Bill of Rights, but subsequently to embrace a violent agenda intended to inflict maximum pain and disruption on his neighbors, potential treason, is not well understood. In recent testimony before our Intelligence Subcommittee, some common traits and characteristics emerged. Said RAND Corporation's Bruce Jenkins: ``It is the same age group that is susceptible to being recruited into gangs. These are young men who are going through identity crises, looking to define themselves. If you have a narrative that exalts violence, that attempts to project that violence as a personal obligation, that offers the tantalizing prospect of clandestinity, identity, all of those are appealing to that specific age group.'' Combine that personal adolescent upheaval with the explosion of information technologies and communications tools, tools which American kids are using to broadcast messages from al Qaeda, as Chairman Thompson just said, and there is a road map to terror, a retail outlet for anger and warped aspirations. Link that intent with a trained terrorist operative who has actual capability, and a ``Made in the USA'' suicide bomber is born. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1955 was carefully constructed by Dave Reichert and me, as ranking member and chairman of the Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee. The bill passed out of subcommittee and full committee unanimously. This bill has strong bipartisan origins. As one who believes that this body's best work is done on a bipartisan basis, I think this bill is a testament. Though not a silver bullet, the legislation will help the Nation develop a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism and the steps we can take to stop it. Madam Speaker, free speech, espousing even very radical beliefs, is protected by our Constitution. But violent behavior is not. Our plan must be to intervene before a person crosses that line separating radical views from violent behavior, to understand the forces at work on the individual and the community, to create an environment that discourages disillusionment and alienation, that instills in young people a sense of belonging and faith in the future. The legislation before us today offers that opportunity. It is, I would suggest, the key to prevention. If we fail to prevent, the best we can do is manage consequences. Prevention is better. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on this side, may I ask?

Ms. HARMAN. I assure the chairman I will just take a brief amount of time. I want to note for the body that this has been an excellent debate. We are bipartisan, we are unanimous, everyone understands the problem, and everyone wants to solve the problem. It is extremely refreshing, and I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate. I want to make two additional points. Number one, our bill was sequentially referred to the Judiciary Committee, and the Judiciary Committee agreed to report it for it to be brought up on the consent calendar. I would especially like to thank Chairman Conyers for his cooperation and note that our staff, our excellent staff, worked out this agreement. My second comment is that a companion bill, the identical text, has been introduced in the Senate, and referred to the Government Affairs Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction there, and I hope that following passage here, should we be able to pass the bill today, there would be prompt action in the other body and we would have a law to send to the President to sign this fall. In conclusion, this is a good process and I think an excellent result. It will make America more safe.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Conyers for yielding to me and commend him, Chairman Reyes, and others for their work on this bill. Though I no longer serve on the Intelligence Committee, I have followed this issue with intense interest. This bill contains many provisions that I and others authored over recent years. It is a strong bill and I strongly support it. It amends FISA to permit more speed and agility in the effort to conduct surveillance of those who would do us harm, but it also provides more resources in a court-approved framework to assure that the constitutional rights of Americans are protected. I continue to follow the intelligence in my role as Chair of the Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee, and threats against our homeland are real. Westerners are training in al Qaeda camps in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Europe, especially Britain, may experience more attacks. Plots have recently been foiled in Denmark and Germany. We helped Britain disrupt the so-called ``liquid bomb plot'' in August of 2006, a plot that could have killed more Americans than were killed on 9/11 as they flew on U.S.-bound airlines from England. Mr. Speaker, all Members want to protect America. All Members want to protect America. So it deeply saddens me that this is yet another partisan debate. It could have been otherwise. For several weeks, Pete Hoekstra, who chaired the Intelligence Committee when I was privileged to serve as ranking member, and I tried to fashion a bipartisan bill. Our list of principles could, I believe, have garnered broad support in both caucuses and led to a veto-proof majority in this House. Americans want Congress on a bipartisan basis to assure we disrupt plots to harm us and protect our Constitution. We could do both and we must do both. This is a strong bill. It does both. Vote ``aye.''

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, on Saturday, October 20, 2007, California State University Dominguez Hills, CSUDH, will celebrate the dedication of the Greg Smith Memorial Garden on its campus. Inspired by the late Professor Smith's appreciation of nature, commitment to the preservation of the environment, and love for CSUDH, the Memorial Garden will serve as a lasting legacy to this extraordinary father, husband, activist, scholar, and teacher. Supported by his widow, June Smith, her family, and many friends, this garden will provide, as June says, ``a place where people can have quiet contemplation and appreciate nature.'' Greg Smith was a city of San Pedro resident, a leader in my district who became a faculty member at CSUDH in 1968 because he wanted to give back to his community. He taught with intelligence and passion, but most importantly he taught from the heart. A noted scholar and educator, Greg took his students all over Los Angeles so that they could better understand the demographics and issues of the different communities within LA County. Greg was a political geographer who not only studied how the shifting political landscape affected the world, he became actively involved in organizations such as the California Coastal Commission and Los Angeles Tree Commission in order to influence the preservation of the environment in California. Greg retired from CSUDH in 1992 after having inspired and touched thousands of students, staff and faculty colleagues. It was 5 years after his retirement, while hiking in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, that Greg died of an apparent heart attack at the age of 66. Greg was a role model to those who knew him and inspired many to continue his efforts to preserve the environment. His research on environmental stability, preservation of mountain tops, land surface design and river water containment contributed greatly to the Nation's knowledge base and ability to preserve agricultural and natural resources. Greg met his wife June, a professor of English at Harbor Community College, while they were undergraduates at Reed College in Portland, OR. They have been residents and active members of the San Pedro community since the late 1960s and have two children, Gilia and Cyrus, and a grandson, Hudson Gregory. I am proud that Greg Smith was my constituent. I am delighted that his family and CSUDH will be honoring the memory of this extraordinary individual with the Greg Smith Memorial Garden.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, California is poised to join several other States in requiring its huge pension funds to disinvest in Iran. The decision is bipartisan. I commend my State's Democratic legislature and Republican Governor for this bold move. So, H.R. 1400 too, is a bold bipartisan move, and I urge its passage. It tightens enforcement of U.S. sanctions, which are working; it conditions future nuclear cooperation with Russia on that country's ceasing its nuclear ties with Iran; and it designates Iran's Revolutionary Guards, who have long carried out terrorist acts in Iraq and the region, as a terror organization. Mr. Speaker, Los Angeles, California, is home to over 800,000 Iranian Americans. In fact, it's called sometimes the ``Tehrangeles.'' I understand that, because we have such a large population. Our fight, however, is not with the ``Tehrangelenos,'' and it surely is not with the Iranian people either; but our fight, and we must continue it, is against the threats and the actions of the extreme regime in Iran who threaten our Democratic ally Israel and who threaten the entire world with the prospect of a nuclear bomb. Coercive sanctions are working. H.R. 1400 will add new tools to those sanctions. This is the right way for this country to speak out and the right way for this country to achieve results.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, if the United States were a house, our veterans would be its foundation. The structural integrity of our homeland has always relied on the selfless service and sacrifice of the women and men in our Armed Forces. Today I rise to honor a veteran, war hero, resident of the 36th congressional district, and my friend-- retired Marine Corps Sergeant and Army combat correspondent Bill Lansford. The Second World War required endurance and courage from our Nation. Normal lives were put on hold, and the future of democracy rested on the shoulders of America's young soldiers. As a 20 year-old Marine, Bill Lansford fought his way through the Pacific Theater--at Guadalcanal, Bougainville and Iwo Jima, three of the bloodiest battles of the war. Bill served with ``Carlson's Raiders,'' an elite Special Forces unit, and earned numerous decorations for valor in combat. The conclusion of World War II would not mark the end of Bill's military service. He joined the Army to write radio shows for the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service, would that would be interrupted by the Korean War--and his transfer to the 11th Airborne Division where he ultimately achieved the rank of Lieutenant. The bonds that Bill Lansford forged in battle influenced his life, and he has devoted himself to representing the interests of Hispanic veterans, particularly through the work of the American GI Forum--which celebrates its 60th anniversary next year. Through membership and service, Bill has made a major contribution to the Forum's success. In Los Angeles, he is working to install a monument to recipients of the Hispanic Congressional Medal of Honor. And an upcoming PBS documentary on World War II will feature him and a fellow ``Carlson's Raider'' discussing their wartime experiences. Bill is married to the wonderful Ruth Lansford, an environmental activist and local legend in her own right. As founder of the Friends of Ballona, Ruth has been instrumental in preserving the beautiful Ballona Wetlands located in my district. The couple resides in Playa Del Rey, California. I am proud to have Bill Lansford as a constituent, and pleased to commend him for his patriotism and lifelong service to country and community.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his steadfast protection of civil liberties in this country. Mr. Speaker, in June, I received the CIA Seal Medal, the Agency's highest civilian award. As one who lives and breathes security issues, this was a tremendous honor which I share with the courageous women and men of the intelligence community, serving in unaccompanied posts in austere locations around the world. I have visited them and thank them again for their bravery and selfless patriotism. Why do I mention this? Because the issue before us is fundamental to our efforts to track terrorists and to ensure that our freedoms and liberties are protected in the process. Only a handful of us in this House are fully briefed on the Terrorist Surveillance Program, a program which gives those who implement it incredible tools to find people who would harm us or to engage in unprecedented violations of Americans' constitutional rights for improper, ideological, or political purposes. Mr. Speaker, the Senate-passed bill punts on the need for a clear legal framework, to check and balance unfettered executive power. In my view, we are drilling down to bedrock principle here, and sadly we in this House appear poised to repeat the Senate's mistake. We can track terrorist communications, and we must, but we must do this without starting down the slippery slope to potential unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy. This is our challenge, and work starts today on building the bipartisan support necessary to do a crucial course correction by the time this bill sunsets.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Well, what I meant was that I'm aware that there were negotiations going on with the DNI last evening. So drafts have been shared back and forth. All I said was that I came over to the floor to support the rule to permit this issue to be addressed under suspension, and I don't have in my hand what may be the latest version.

Ms. HARMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, just to respond to that, I'm not interested in lunacy, and I know that Mr. Dreier is not, and I'm sure that Ms. Wilson and Mr. Hoekstra are not either. There is a way to solve this problem correctly. I believe that the draft, which I'm certain will be circulated to everybody imminently, I believe that you will see that it is a very careful and balanced effort to address this problem, and it has been shared.

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his long service, both on the Intelligence and Rules Committees. I am now the Chair of an Intelligence Subcommittee of Homeland Security. As no one in this Chamber would miss, security is my passion, and I think it is our primary obligation as Members of Congress. I was sitting here listening to the discussion about where is the bill and why aren't we acting on FISA? It seems a little disingenuous, given the fact that the current ranking member on the Intelligence Committee and former chairman, has an article in USA Today in which he says that this move to get the administration to put its surveillance program under FISA ``gives legal protections to foreign enemies who would do us harm.'' Excuse me? FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed by a large bipartisan majority in 1978. FISA was passed to assure that Americans, not foreigners, would have their constitutional rights protected when the U.S. engages, as it must, in foreign intelligence surveillance. I don't think there is anyone here, not that I know of, who is against foreign intelligence surveillance. There is no one in this body, I haven't heard one person say that we think that when the U.S. engages in foreign intelligence surveillance, in foreign countries involving communications between foreigners in different foreign countries, that FISA applies. But FISA can and must apply when Americans' constitutional rights are at issue, and that is the issue we will debate a little bit later. I want to say that it surprises me again that all of a sudden no one knows what we might be talking about. There have been intense negotiations, I have been a part of some of them, for months over what we might do to make FISA work better. In the 109th Congress, all nine Democrats on the Intelligence Committee authored legislation to help FISA work better; and in this Congress I'm aware of both closed and open hearings by the Intelligence Committee to carefully consider these issues. So it seems to me quite surprising and disingenuous to hear that, for example, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee doesn't even feel that FISA protects Americans; he thinks that it coddles foreigners. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Reclaiming my time, I don't have a copy of the latest draft. It may be one I've seen, but I'm not absolutely positive. My understanding is that negotiations have been going on for quite a long time and that the requirements of the DNI have been met. What is happening, and I think it's a real tragedy for the American people, is that the goalposts keep moving. I just wonder whether the other side wants this to be a wedge issue or wants to solve the problem. As one Member here who has worked on this for years, I want to solve the problem; and we will attempt to do that under the suspension rules later today.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, this year, the sport of beach volleyball will say goodbye to its most celebrated player--Karch Kiraly. It is with great pleasure that I acknowledge his accomplishments and congratulate him on his retirement from professional beach volleyball. He will cap his illustrious career with the Association of Volleyball Professionals later this month, with a final appearance at the AVP Manhattan Beach Open--a tournament he has won an impressive eight times. With 148 domestic and international victories under his belt, Karch Kiraly is the winningest player in the history of the game. Remarkably, he has not only won more often than anyone else, but he has won tournaments in each of the last four decades--a feat many consider to be unrepeatable. Clearly, this three-time Olympic gold medalist and six-time AVP MVP richly deserved induction to the Volleyball Hall of Fame in 2001, six years before his retirement. The AVP Manhattan Beach Open is one of the most exciting annual events to occur in the 36th congressional district. Each August, thousands of people flock to the beach, just steps from the Manhattan Beach pier, to see the best players in the world compete. A victory in Manhattan Beach is one of the sport's most prestigious honors, and for the last 29 years Karch Kiraly has been there vying for the championship trophy. From his days as a UCLA Bruin, where he led his team to three NCAA championships, to his professional career as the symbol of beach volleyball, Karch Kiraly has performed with uncommon graciousness and poise. In addition to the AVP Sportsmanship Awards he received in 1995, 1997, and 1998, Kiraly is regarded by friends and fans alike as focused, personable, and refreshingly humble. While Karch Kiraly is retiring as an active player, he has no intention of leaving beach volleyball. We will miss his trademark pink hat, but as a professional beach volleyball commentator and founder and director of the Karch Kiraly Academy, he will continue to play an active role in influencing the sport he took to new heights. I am delighted to commend Karch Kiraly for his successful and inspirational career. Fans everywhere will miss seeing him playing--and winning--down on the sand in Manhattan Beach, CA.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him again for his service both on the Rules Committee and ongoing on the Intelligence Committee. It is reassuring that the debate has quieted. As many people have said on both sides, this is a very serious subject. While we were having our break because of a computer glitch, I had the chance to sit on the floor and talk to many colleagues on a bipartisan basis about how this Member who has studied this issue for years sees it. I point out to colleagues that the bill that has been distributed, H.R. 3356, says on page 2, section 105(a), ``a court order is not required for the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not located within the United States.'' It is the intention of this bill, which will be made in order on the suspension calendar under the rule, to exempt foreign-to-foreign communications, and it is the intention, I believe, of every single person sitting here, several hundred of us, to exempt foreign-to- foreign communications from the warrant requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. What is really at issue, and I hope this will clarify the subject for some who are still wondering what it is, is whether or not we will have a court approve the parameters, the framework of this entire program, or whether we will leave the dimensions of the program and the activities under the program to the Attorney General or perhaps the Attorney General working with the Director of National Intelligence. Some of us know the details of this program. It's a valuable program. It's very complicated, and it has many different parts. I, for one, thought that it was being regulated under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act until I learned recently that the administration had chosen not to follow FISA. I think, and I would hope many on the other side would think, that we must have a legal framework around this program. No more blank checks for this Attorney General or for any future Attorneys General. I urge approval of this rule.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, only a few of us in this House are fully briefed on the terrorist surveillance program. It gives those who implement it incredible tools to find people who would harm us or to engage in unprecedented violations of Americans' constitutional rights for improper political or ideological reasons. Most of this bill is not in dispute. But the key disagreement is whether a foreign surveillance program with unprecedented reach into the personal communications of terrorists or innocent Americans should be subject to supervision by an article III court. As you have just heard, that review comes in the form of a single warrant approving the contours of the program, called a ``basket warrant.'' Our bill permits time to get that warrant while engaging in surveillance. So a vote for our bill is a vote for sophisticated surveillance tools needed to catch terrorists and a vote to assure that those tools are not abused. I urge its bipartisan support.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase an old ad, when Ellen Tauscher and Ike Skelton speak, I listen. They work together carefully on important legislation, and this is a piece of important legislation. I don't know about others in this Chamber, but I am tired. We have been working all day and all night for weeks to try to get to an August recess after accomplishing as much as possible. It is 100 degrees outside. The humidity level is very high, but we are in an air- conditioned place. In contrast to us, over 100,000 American troops, very brave kids, are in 120 degree weather with 40 to 75 pounds of equipment on their backs, bravely defending America. I think as tired as I am, this bill strikes the right tone and says that in order to fulfill our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, we have to make sure that we have a ready military. Mr. Speaker, we don't. It is broken. Every expert we have heard from knows that. Our failure to plan adequately for the post-military phase in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere has created a broken military. So I commend the sponsor of this bill and the others who have helped draft it. I am proud to be a cosponsor in the effort to state clearly that the kids we have sent into harm's way should get the rest and training they deserve. I would close by saying there was a lot of conversation this morning about FISA and how we are at heightened risk and we are doing the wrong things. Well, I know what is the right thing to do about FISA, and I know what is the right thing to do about a broken military. Pass this bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and commend Chairman Dingell for his enormous work. Regardless of the business before the House, for the past two weeks, a drumbeat of dire predictions has been maintained on this floor about the so-called terrorism gap--the failure of Democrats to fix the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to permit our intelligence agencies to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications related to international terrorism. The argument is specious on its face. Democrats are just as committed as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to preventing another terrorist attack on the United States. As a member of the Gang of Eight from 2002-2006, I am very familiar with FISA and our Terrorist Surveillance Program. While I agree that some technical adjustments are appropriate, the core principle of FISA and the 4th Amendment--that individualized court warrants are required if the communications of a U.S. person are involved--must be preserved. But my question is, in the context of the CHAMP Act now before us: where is the outrage for the 5 million American kids who have no health insurance and no prospect of getting it unless we pass this bill? What is the real objective of Members who continue to clutter an essential debate on improving health outcomes for our neediest children with alarmist exchanges on the surveillance of potential terrorists? Perhaps it is to jam Democrats and score partisan points before the August recess instead of reaching out to the most vulnerable among us. The CHAMP Act reaches out by providing insurance to 11 million children, covering mental health and dental benefits, and by allowing States to cover pregnant women and family planning. It reauthorizes Title V abstinence education, but requires that it be medically and scientifically accurate, as well as proven effective. I expect every Member agrees that no Federal program should use taxpayer dollars to give inaccurate information to young people. The CHAMP Act makes improvements to the Medicare program, too, providing our most vulnerable seniors with better coverage for cost- saving preventive care and by making it easier to apply for benefits. Let me bring the issue close to home. The Venice Family Clinic, located in my congressional district, is the largest free clinic in the Nation. They know something about reaching out to the most vulnerable in our communities. Clinic staff told me today about an 8-year-old boy and his younger brother. Both of them are on the waiting list for SCHIP because the program is maxed-out--and their working mother doesn't earn enough to buy health insurance. This child suffers epileptic seizures every couple of weeks. He worries constantly about when the next one will occur, when and if he will be able to see a doctor or have access to medication that could help him. These are not things an 8-year-old in a country as rich as ours should be worrying about. Expanding SCHIP will cover these children. It will change their lives, and the lives of 11 million other low income American kids. FISA can, should and will be fixed--and we can fix health insurance for kids, too. Every child deserves the health insurance that my four children and one grandchild have. And I have two more grandchildren on the way. Hopefully, the CHAMP Act will be law before they are born early next year.