Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the Chairman for yielding to me. I spoke on the rule about the merits of this bill and commended him for the job that he has done leading the Homeland Security committee in this Congress. I rise again to clarify something. It seems a shame to me that this good bill is being disparaged. Claims are being made that we have no ability now, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications. That is false. Foreign-to- foreign communications are not covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. We can intercept them, and we should be intercepting them vigorously right now. The question comes up only in circumstances when FISA is triggered because a U.S. person is involved. But in that circumstance, we should still intercept those communications, and we should then be getting emergency warrants, a limited number of individualized emergency warrants when an American is involved. That can happen now under FISA, which has been modernized many times since 9/11. If additional resources are needed to implement the emergency warrant section of FISA, legislation proposed by the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee last year should be enacted.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission has been a passion for me, to honor the memories of those who tragically and needlessly died on that day, to show respect for their amazing families, and to keep our country safe. My roles as coauthor of the intelligence reform legislation and lead House cosponsor with Mr. Hoekstra on its conference was a personal highlight of my service here, and I'm honored to be a conferee on this bill and to stand with Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King in support of it. The report passed the Senate 85-8 last night. Are people seriously going to oppose a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission? Sure, there's more to do. But here are many terrific things in this bill. Number 1, it improves vertical information sharing between the Federal intelligence officials and local first responders, crucial if we're to prevent future attacks, a growing possibility according to the recently released NIE on terrorism. The next attacks could be anywhere. We need our capable first preventers to have accurate and actionable information. Second, it will reform the Visa Waiver Program which, I agree, as it currently operates, is a potential loophole. I worry that a terrorist trained in the Pakistani tribal areas and traveling on a British passport could use that program to come here and to enable a homegrown cell to conduct an effective operation against Americans in America. We need to tighten that program, and this bill does it. There are things that are not in this bill. I still think we need more reorganization of Congress, and I also think that the legislation proposed by all nine Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee last year to provide an expedited emergency warrant process under FISA should be enacted by this House. That's all the reform of FISA we need. We have authority now to listen to foreigners abroad, despite some claims by the other side. The only thing necessary are procedural reforms, and we should enact them promptly.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation and salute the bill's sponsor, Barbara Lee from California, as a courageous and clear voice in this Congress. It's interesting listening to this debate that there seems to be no disagreement about a resolution that will help build stability in Iraq, as others have said. It will make clear that the U.S. is not an occupying force, and it will deny al Qaeda a key recruiting tool. It is also clear that we are not prohibiting a U.S. presence in the region, even a U.S. temporary presence in Iraq. We have bases in other neighboring countries and the Middle East, and we will have an over- the-horizon force. I'm really surprised that not only is the White House refusing to follow the law, but those senior White House officials with whom I've spoken numerous times about this issue all seem to agree we don't need a permanent military presence, and yet, stubbornly, they refuse to make clear that we won't have one. Pass this resolution. Let's do the right thing. Congress, as an article I body, needs to get this White House to follow the law.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment is offered by Mr. Upton, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Inglis and me, and what it would do is deny funds under this appropriations bill if the ENERGY STAR and the Federal Emergency Management program standards are not met. Mr. Chairman, it takes 18 seconds to switch one incandescent light bulb. If everyone did this, just one, we would save $8 billion in energy costs, prevent the burning of 30 billion pounds of coal, remove 2 million carts worth of greenhouse gas emissions, and make a big dent in our climate problem. This amendment has been accepted to every appropriations bill so far, and I would urge its adoption now. It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. HARMAN. Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield.

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

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will be necessarily absent from voting today as I will be on official business in my district, hosting a Cabinet Secretary. Had I been present to vote, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment offered by Representatives Lewis, Welch and Weller to prevent CMS from making deep cuts in hospital payments for one year. As a former Board Member of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, I would have voted ``no'' on Representative Pence's amendment to prohibit funds for Planned Parenthood. I would have also voted for the bill's final passage.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would point out to our colleagues that the action just described in my view is not necessary. I rise in support of the rule, the underlying bill, and in strong support for ending our combat mission in Iraq and redirecting our efforts towards stability in the region, including Iraq, but also in trouble spots like Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Let me make three points. First, based on firsthand experience from my fourth visit to Iraq just weeks ago, Baghdad is not safer. True, we have worked successfully with tribal leaders against al Qaeda in Anbar Province, but the major population center, Baghdad, the focus of our military surge, is not turning around. Progress will not be made by a continuation of our combat mission. Second, the Skelton bill mirrors a companion bill in the other body which has impressive bipartisan support. I urge Republicans to support this measure, and know that some will do so. The message our constituents want to hear is that 290 of us, a veto- proof bipartisan majority, insist on a responsible end to our combat mission in Iraq beginning now with passage of this bill. Third, though I feel Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff's use of the words ``gut feeling'' was unwise, I share the view that our country could be attacked at any time. Al Qaeda has regrouped in Pakistan and expanded its reach throughout North Africa. Homegrown cells in England and elsewhere are increasing, and our assumption must be that they are here as well. Low-tech, low-scale vehicle-borne attacks are, sadly, not hard to execute. At a minimum, those, and attacks on soft targets like our mass transit systems, may be in our near future. DHS, FBI and our exceptionally talented local police departments are working overtime, though their ranks are depleted and their equipment and they are surged in Iraq. But 100 percent protection is impossible. Mr. Speaker, this is where our attention must be, and our resources. Pass the Skelton bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, providing health insurance to those working their way out of welfare is vitally important. However, pairing a program that actually helps American families with one that extends funding for abstinence-only education is truly insulting. To stay healthy, our adolescents must receive accurate information about protecting themselves from sexually transmitted infection. Federal funding should not be squandered on programs that are not medically accurate or scientifically proven to prevent disease and unintended pregnancy. This is especially true as we struggle to find funding to provide American youth with health insurance. Our children deserve better than this. Politics often requires compromises. But make no mistake; my vote is a vote for working families, and not against proven programs to reduce unwanted teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. The Transitional Medical Assistance program will require future extensions, and I will continue to fight for programs that provide real information and protection for our children.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk on behalf of Mr. Upton, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina and me.

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a bipartisan amendment offered by Mr. Upton, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Inglis and me. We've offered it to every appropriations bill so far and it's been accepted by voice vote to every appropriations bill so far. We're hopeful that the excellent chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee will accept it in this case. I do want to commend him, by the way, for putting a superb bill on the House floor, especially in support of the arts and several other projects that I consider very significant. At any rate, our amendment, bipartisan amendment, asks the government to set an example for the rest of the country by purchasing energy- efficient light bulbs. Existing law requires Federal agencies to buy products that meet Department of Energy, Energy Star or Federal Energy Management Program standards. This amendment adds teeth and says that no fund shall be expended unless this occurs. Mr. Chairman, it takes about 18 seconds to change a light bulb. In 18 seconds, each of us can change our energy future by changing that light bulb to one of these Energy Star or energy-efficient light bulbs. I'm sure that my co-author, Mr. Upton, will offer more specifics on this right now. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield to Mr. Upton.

Ms. HARMAN. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

Ms. HARMAN. I would be happy to yield.

Ms. HARMAN. Reclaiming my time, I would like to thank both the chairman and the ranking minority member and my partner, Mr. Upton, for our work together. This is a good example of the Federal Government setting a good example and a bipartisanship working in this House. I'm very pleased to be a part of it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and commend him for the role that he is playing on a bipartisan basis to assure that existing standards, the ENERGY STAR standards and the Federal Energy Management Program standards are adhered to. This effort that we're making on every appropriations bill will ensure that our practice complies with our law. I agree with him that CFLs offer much more efficiency. There are also LEDs. And hopefully the incandescent bulb makers in America will adjust their own manufacturing so that they produce efficient light bulbs as well. Another bill that we're all cosponsoring that's pending in the Energy Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce will provide incentives to U.S. manufacturers to produce more efficient lighting and set proper goals. Finally, I want to say that bipartisanship has been hailed all morning. It takes 270 Members of Congress and 60 Members of the Senate and hopefully one willing President to change the light bulb policy, and I think we're proceeding that way this morning.

Ms. HARMAN. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. HARMAN. We do have language in our bill that I just described, the one pending in the Energy and Commerce Committee to exempt historical lighting from the new goals. Hopefully we can invent light bulbs for historical lighting that are more efficient too, but we're trying to be reasonable here. In response to earlier comments by Mr. Peterson, the goal is to help the domestic industry be able to produce efficient lighting. And the goal is also to set tough enough standards so that we save the enormous amount of energy that Mr. Upton was just mentioning.

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I did not mention earlier and would like to say that the Speaker's initiative, her Green Initiative, does also address this issue of trying to move away from inefficient incandescent bulbs. One more time, our goal would be to make incandescent bulbs, as well as other bulbs, more efficient. We are not choosing winners in this effort. But surely, everyone must understand that it takes 18 seconds to change a light bulb. This is something all of us can do quite quickly, except you have to comply with the House procedures that we just heard about. I am very excited about the notion that we are setting an example in this House and in this Congress about more efficient lighting.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I hope there is no one opposed. I offer this amendment with Mr. Upton, Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Inglis of South Carolina in order to help the government set an example for the rest of the country by purchasing energy-efficient light bulbs. Mr. Chairman, existing law requires Federal agencies to buy products that meet Department of Energy, Energy Star or Federal Energy Management program standards. This amendment adds teeth to that standard, stating that no funds may be used to purchase any light bulb that does not meet it. Identical language has already been adopted in prior appropriations bills. Our intention is to offer this amendment as the Upton-Harman amendment on the next appropriations bill and to continue this until we are through the appropriations cycle. Our bottom line is: The Federal Government must set the example. This is already the law, but it needs to be the practice as well. Let me close with the fact that incandescent bulbs, which are used by most Americans, are 10 percent efficient. This sounds like Congress. I think our goal ought to be much greater efficiency here in this body, and much greater efficiency with respect to the lighting that we use. It takes 18 seconds to change a light bulb. It will take more time than that to change Congress. But it is my hope that this amendment will pass attached to every appropriations bill. I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, those of us who lived through the brown- outs and rolling black-outs during the California energy crisis remember well how difficult the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was to deal with, and it pains me to vote for a national policy that I hope will not need to be used. However, after carefully reviewing the issue, I do not see a better alternative. My vote is a vote to keep the lights on in Southern California.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to resume my service on the Telecom Subcommittee in this Congress. I also rise in strong support of the Truth in Caller ID Act, which will prevent acts of identity theft and billions of dollars in consumer losses each year. I would like to engage the bill's sponsor, Mr. Engel, in a brief colloquy to clarify the effect this bill has on other laws relating to national security and law enforcement. The relevant section reads: ``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize or prohibit any investigative, protective or intelligence activities performed in connection with official duties, and in accordance with all applicable laws, by a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State or a political subdivision of a State, or by an intelligence agency of the United States.'' I'd like to ask the author what the meaning of this language is.

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for clarifying that. Lawfully authorized national security and law enforcement activities are critical in this era of terror. Legislation designed to improve our Nation's safety and security, like the Truth in Caller ID Act, should not inadvertently impair them, nor should it expand them. This carefully crafted bill, in my view, strikes the right balance. And I would like to commend the author, Mr. Engel, Mr. Barton, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Upton for their diligent work. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. General Leave