Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act. Advancing solar technology is vital to our Nation's energy security, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and establishing the United States as a leader in green technology. This bill will create a structured plan for pursuing solar research, development and demonstration, and will foster new public-private partnerships to make clean, renewable energy more affordable and accessible for all Americans. Solar power can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change. My home State of California is ahead of the curve: 67 percent of the United States total solar generation is in California. The Fortunato family in Hermosa Beach, a city I represent, is retrofitting their home to be the city's first ``net zero'' home and to power all their electricity needs through renewables--mostly through the use of solar panels for electricity and solar hot water for heating. In fact, throughout California's 36th Congressional District, my constituents are turning to solar energy as they continue the region's tradition of environmental leadership. Large installations at Harbor City College in Wilmington, BT telecommunications in El Segundo, and the Port of Los Angeles are setting the standard for solar excellence in the South Bay. At BT, flexible solar panels provide shade in the outdoor parking lot--something that could be widely copied. My family installed solar panels on our roof in Venice, California, over 8 years ago. I worked for President Jimmy Carter, who in 1979 mandated that by the year 2000, 20 percent of power generated in the United States should come from the Sun. Three decades later, we're still far from that visionary goal. Solar power accounts for just 1.2 percent of the U.S. mix. We can--and must--do far better.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank my friend and colleague for yielding and rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, Senator Susan Collins and I toured the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Mindful of the assault on the USS Cole, during a security briefing with the Coast Guard, I asked what sort of protections were in place to defend against threats from small boats. The response made my jaw drop. We were told that small boats were advised to observe a 100-foot security perimeter around large ships--as if an imaginary ``Do Not Cross'' sign would deter terrorists bent on mimicking the USS Cole attack and blowing themselves up. Clearly, small boats continue to pose a critical security risk and deserve serious attention. The manager's amendment to the underlying bill contains a provision which I authored requiring the Coast Guard to conduct a study assessing whether transponders--such as radio frequency ID tags--on small boats can effectively mitigate the threat of small boat attacks in major ports. Such a system already exists in Singapore, and Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen has suggested it may work in the United States. Transponders are not the only way to address the small boat threat and they may not be the best, but they have the potential to greatly increase situational awareness in U.S. ports. Beyond the small boats provision, this bill contains two other measures I believe are critical. One is a requirement for an Inspector General's report evaluating port operation centers' relationships with State, local, and regional fusion centers. The other is a requirement for DHS to conduct a review of the potential consequences of an attack on a gasoline or chemical cargo ship in one of America's ports. I thank Chairman Oberstar for including my small boats provision, and I thank the Rules Committee, especially my California colleague and friend, Ms. Matsui, for bringing this bill to the floor. Vote ``aye'' on the rule and the underlying legislation.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, eight years after 9/11, there remains a very real, very serious threat of another attack on U.S. soil. The recent series of arrests--in Dallas, Chicago, Denver and New York City--underscores the need for continued resolve. The safety of the American people relies upon multiple layers of security--from intelligence to local police to the technologies that help us identify potential threats. Our duty as lawmakers is to ensure that all of these pieces are properly in place and constantly reevaluated. A New York Times report this week highlighted a gaping hole in one of these layers--we still have no system in place to verify whether foreign visitors have left this country. Congress and DHS have known about this hole. In March, Secretary Napolitano joined me for a tour of one of the nation's top airport terror targets: Los Angeles International Airport, part of which is in my Congressional District. We walked through customs to observe the collection of foreign visitors' fingerprints upon entry and I pointed out the absence of an exit program. Secretary Napolitano committed her Department to addressing this issue in a timely fashion. Work is already underway. DHS just completed a pilot project to test exit systems and will soon release a report on their findings. This bill provides $50 million to put an air exit system in place. It is imperative that DHS do so. By collecting fingerprints when foreign passengers exit, we can match them with those collected upon entry and cross-check them with a range of databases--from the State Department to the FBI. This isn't just data for the sake of data. It builds situational awareness and makes it easier for terrorism investigators to connect the ``dots.'' This kind of capability is a vital tool in the ongoing struggle to prevent the next attack on American soil. It's true that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies successfully thwarted recent plots, but that's no guarantee that they'll detect the next plot. A biometric system will provide them with better information that can more quickly identify potential threats. Four of the 9/11 hijackers overstayed their visas. It is exactly this type of thing that exit data will help us detect. I would also like to thank the Conferees for including a 1-year waiver of the port security grant matching requirement. Since 2006, the SAFE Port Act has provided hundreds of millions of dollars to secure U.S. ports. But tough financial times--and a decline in shipping--have made it difficult for ports to meet the 25 percent cost-sharing requirement. Officials at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have repeatedly told me just how burdensome the requirement is. It creates a disincentive for ports to apply for grants, without which fund vital efforts to mitigate threats cannot be funded.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and salute his leadership on this committee and our long, long, long friendship as southern California Representatives. I rise in support of this legislation and again thank the committee leadership and committee members for including language in the original House bill and the original committee's report reflecting many of the concerns I have about nuclear proliferation in Pakistan. Regrettably, some of that language is not in this compromise, though I applaud section 203's limitations. Mr. Speaker, Pakistan poses one of the most complex foreign policy challenges facing the United States today. It sits at the intersection of vital security interests, from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to the war in Afghanistan. A secure and stable Pakistan is of critical importance to the United States, and yet, with a large al Qaeda presence, a vibrant Taliban insurgency, and widespread political unrest, that stability is anything but guaranteed. Recent news reports suggest that the city of Quetta is becoming the new stronghold for the Taliban. Our extremely capable Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, says that ``our intelligence on Quetta is vastly less, we have no people there, no cross-border operations, no predators.'' The stakes are truly high. Pakistan's nuclear stockpile cannot be allowed to fall into the wrong hands. In March, I worked with Chairman Berman to incorporate language that would guarantee U.S. investigators access to individuals suspected of proliferation activities. While that language is not in this bill, this bill does limit security-related assistance contingent upon Pakistan's help dismantling proliferation networks and combating terrorist groups. A few weeks ago, a Pakistani court lifted the requirement that A.Q. Khan, the mastermind of the most notorious nuclear smuggling ring ever, remain under police escort when traveling around the country. Just recently, Khan boasted to the press that the Government of Pakistan was complicit in his past activity.

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the aid authorized by this bill will persuade President Zardari and his government to do more to crack down on proliferation offenders and become better partners with the world community in stabilizing their country. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a very large, 5-year down payment on long- term success in Pakistan. We need to be clear-eyed about the opportunities and to embrace them, but also clear-eyed about the risks.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will help America's first responders keep their communities safer by solving a dangerous deficiency in their emergency communications capabilities. Our first responders are also our first preventers, and their ability to communicate seamlessly and effectively on an interoperable network during an emergency helps save lives and protect critical infrastructure. For over 7 years, I have worked to prevent a tragic repetition of the communications problems that resulted in thousands of deaths on 9/11-- when the lack of an interoperable network prevented the NYPD from warning firefighters that the Twin Towers were glowing red and it was time to evacuate. My home State of California is prone to natural disasters, especially earthquakes and wild fires. Alarmingly, there are still instances when our firefighters have relied on runners and drivers to relay messages during an emergency. This occurs when multiple companies respond to the same incident, each carrying different equipment. An important piece of the solution to this crisis is the Public Safety Interoperable Communications, PSIC, grant program, which provides funding to purchase interoperable communications equipment and undertake training to use it. Since 2007, the PSIC program has provided nearly $1 billion in grants to state and local governments, and the deadline to spend the funds is next year. All states were required to develop Statewide Communications Interoperability Plans, SCIP. Unfortunately, according to the Department of Homeland Security, its approval of these plans was delayed until the spring of 2008, in part because DHS wanted to ensure they were subject to appropriate environmental reviews. This is understandable; however, the delay in approving SCIP plans means that not all of the grant funds can be spent before next year's deadline. The PSIC program is vital to public safety; it should be allowed the necessary time and funding. The legislation I introduce today--which is a companion bill to S.1694 introduced by Senators Rockefeller and Hutchinson--would guarantee a one-year extension to spend the grant money, with an option for an additional year approved on a case-by-case basis. While I urge prompt action on this bill, this will in no way relieve us of the obligation to complete the build-out of the 700 megahertz spectrum so that we develop true national interoperability. I am enormously disappointed that, despite universal agreement on the goal, real progress has been so slow. In conclusion, the PSIC program must be continued. It is a building block in the effort to equip our communities to respond to a terrorist attack or natural disaster. I urge prompt consideration and passage.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying PAYGO bill. For those who worry about hemorrhaging deficits and debt, this bill is for you. I was here in the early 1990s, in another century, and remember well casting a career-risking vote in 1993--it was a totally partisan vote--for the Clinton budget that I believe history will show put the country on a glide path to a balanced budget and created surpluses for the first time in a generation. Sadly, it was also the last time in a generation that we saw those surpluses. Today is a proud moment for the Blue Dog Coalition in our dogged pursuit of bipartisan budget solutions. As a self-proclaimed ``grandmother dog,'' I salute my colleagues in the group, and especially our former leader and colleague, Charlie Stenholm, for championing PAYGO. I know that many of us in this Chamber yearn for more bipartisanship. I would urge our colleagues to seize this moment to embrace a concept that makes absolute common sense, a concept that the government pays for the programs it enacts, including the defense programs that it enacts. One of the great promises of this legislation is that we will finally put predictable war costs on budget, as we should, and consider them in the context of a large budget at a time of deficits and debt that are much higher than any of us would like to see. So, Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we have the opportunity to hit the reset button and to engage in more honest budgeting. Yes, some compromises had to be made, and I would support a tighter version of PAYGO than the one we are considering. But I also believe that the bill before us today makes an unequivocal statement by Congress that the delusional out-of-control spending of the past years is finally behind us. Surely, this is something that Democrats and Republicans alike can celebrate. Mr. Speaker, millions of American families are swallowing hard, surely those families in my State of California are, and making tough financial choices right now. The Federal Government must do the same. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the PAYGO Act of 2009 and call on our friends in the Senate not to allow this much-needed legislation to languish.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished service of our former colleague Pete Geren as he steps down as Secretary of the Army. Secretary Geren, a quiet and thoughtful leader, fulfilled the duties of his office with superb competence and compassion. Of his many achievements, his initiative to combat military sexual trauma deserves particular recognition. Secretary Geren called the epidemic of rape and sexual assault within the ranks of the Army ``fratricide.'' He viewed its elimination as of equal consequence to the challenge of racially integrating the armed forces. Last year, Secretary Geren launched the I. A.M. Strong campaign, a five-year program designed to eradicate rape and sexual assault in the Army. Secretary Geren was unwavering in his efforts to tackle this important issue. As he explained, ``we're the United States Army and we live our values.'' Prior to joining the Defense Department, Secretary Geren represented Texas' 12th District for four terms. During that time, we worked together on the Armed Services committee, where he served with distinction. He also served on the Science & Technology and the Public Works & Transportation Committees. Secretary Geren's strength of character and visionary leadership has resulted in a better Army and a safer nation. I thank him for his extraordinary service to country, and look forward to applauding whatever new and exciting chapter he now begins.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, today, together with my colleagues Representatives Melissa Bean and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, I rise to introduce H.R. 3199, that takes an important step toward ensuring the safety and security of our communities by enhancing the surge capacities of local medical facilities, while helping ease veterans' transition into civilian life. Every year, highly trained, experienced medics leave the ranks of the nation's armed forces. Yet those who wish to find employment in the medical field must start from scratch, fulfilling the same entry-level criteria as citizens without any hands-on experience. At the same time, hospitals and emergency medical services face a shortage of qualified personnel. Many operate at or near capacity, barely meeting the daily demand for their services. In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other mass-casualty incident the resulting surge of patients would overwhelm medical facilities. Having the largest possible pool of experienced emergency medical personnel on hand is crucial in responding to such an incident. Veterans with medical experience are the ideal people to fill this gap. Who better to come to the rescue in face of a disaster than the same men and women we've trusted to defend this country overseas? In the world of emergency response there is no substitute for experience. First responders routinely face life-or-death decisions, often amid a backdrop of chaos and confusion. This would be magnified during a terrorist attack or natural disaster. Military medics work at the scenes of IED attacks, suicide bombings, and firefights; many have experience equivalent to that of their most seasoned civilian counterparts in this respect. By treating veteran medics as entry-level trainees, we forego an opportunity to benefit from their existing training and highly relevant experience. Rather than subjecting them to the same coursework as everyone else, states should allow military medics to undertake a regimen that accounts for their existing training and prepares them to provide care in a non-combat environment. Not only will this enhance the surge capacity of medical facilities, it will also spare the cost of unnecessary, redundant training. The legislation we introduce today will create such a fast-track, removing the barriers that currently impede veterans' assimilation into the corps of emergency responders. Not only is this an important step to bolstering the nation's preparedness, it also helps veterans transition from military to civilian life. In 2008, the average unemployment rate of recently discharged military personnel was more than 30 percent higher than the rate for non-veterans. Creating an avenue to employment for veterans with medical experience is the least we can do to honor the brave men and women who have risked their lives in defense of their country. We owe it to veterans to help them find work and we owe our communities the protection they deserve. This is a win-win solution that allows us to do both.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 425, I was attending a classified briefing. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill and commend Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for moving another unanimous bipartisan authorization bill out of their committee. As a former member of the House Armed Services Committee, I admire the bipartisan way in which the committee operates. My aerospace-centric congressional district is grateful too. Thanks too to Personnel Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis and her staff for working with me on an issue of paramount importance, the epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the military. Mr. Speaker, the math is shocking. Women who serve in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq. Only 317 out of the 2,763 subjects investigated during fiscal year 2008 were referred to courts martial. That's 11 percent, a figure far below civilian prosecution rates where 40 percent of those arrested for rape are prosecuted. DOD must close the gaps in prosecution and remove obstacles to legal enforcement. Effective investigation and prosecution are the keys to turning this epidemic around, by drawing bright red lines around unacceptable conduct. This bill includes language from a resolution I authored with our colleague Mike Turner, who has been a champion on this issue; and I thank him for his hard work. Our provision calls for review of DOD's capacity and infrastructure to investigate and prosecute sexual assault and rape cases and to identify any deficiencies. The legislation also requires that DOD develop a sexual assault prevention plan for Congress' review. This would include action plans for reducing the number of sexual assaults and timelines for implementation of the program. DOD would be required to develop a mechanism to measure the effectiveness of its prevention program. While this bill is commendable and includes good steps towards eliminating rapists in the ranks, I believe we can do even more. We must build on these efforts and insist on real accountability from the chain of command. And a major step toward eradicating rape in the military is making sure that blue-on-blue attacks are punished. Mr. Speaker, this is a force protection issue and a moral issue. Congress and DOD must do better. And when our colleague John McHugh becomes Army Secretary, I urge him to pursue the issue and support the Army's impressive ``I am strong'' campaign initiated by his predecessor, our former colleague, Pete Geren. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, we live in difficult times. Families continue to struggle to make ends meet. Two major American auto companies have crumbled before our eyes. And the US faces threats from groups and individuals across the globe who endeavor to do us harm. Today, the bill before us--hopefully the last war supplemental funding measure of its kind--attempts to tackle at least one of these looming problems. It finances the targeted strategy President Obama has crafted to minimize security threats to the United States and stabilize one of the most volatile regions of the world. The Supplemental's provisions on Afghanistan and Pakistan focus on preventing them from becoming failed states and safe havens for terrorists. It is also a needed course-correction from the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan--one that makes ending corruption and improving governance, not projection of military force, the top priority. The President has asked me--personally--to support this measure. And I will support it for three reasons. First, this bill funds a very clear strategy in Afghanistan and limits the military mission there. Second, it provides the means to end the combat mission in Iraq and requires the Secretary of Defense to report on troop drawdown status there. Third, there is no funding for US troops to Pakistan--only non- military aid and counter-insurgency training to enable Pakistani forces to defeat the ominous Taliban threat inside their borders. It rightly focuses on programs that can and should succeed, rather than open-ended engagements that lack achievable goals. Governance is the key--providing the Afghan and Pakistani people an alternative to the false promise of safety and security offered by insurgent groups who are in fact terrorizing local populations. Earning the trust of the people of those countries is crucial--reforming the police, cleaning up the court systems and targeting corruption are necessary to restore confidence. One of the most important provisions contained in this bill is the requirement that the President submit a report to Congress within the next year assessing the success of the Af/Pak policy--the extent to which the Afghan and Pakistan governments have supported counterinfurgency operations and governance reforms, and the ways in which they effectively governing the shared border region. The oversight measures contained in this bill will ensure that the mission is focused and that our goals are met. Investments are specific and intended to funs a finite objective. But this measure funds more than our engagements abroad. It provides $7.7 billion for H1N1 pandemic flu preparedness and response efforts-- most of which will be used to expand our ability to detect the virus and supplement vaccine stockpiles. While this pandemic has not been as extreme as initially expected, many scientists fear that H1N1 could recur--in a stronger form--next year. This is a strategic investment in the federal government's contingency planning efforts. Finally, the legislation honors America's wounded warriors, providing funds for health and rehabilitation programs. I have long opposed conducting US military operations ``off the books.'' President Obama is committed to ending this practice, which I believe is necessary to making sure our missions are effective and Americans can understand the real trade-offs involved. Statement on Conference Report of HR 2346, FY 2009 War Supplemental Appropriations 15 June 2009

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of this rule and of the bill, as amended, by the Senate. Mr. Speaker, as they say in the intelligence world, ``this is a slam dunk.'' I have experienced the tragedy that afflicts many tobacco users and their families. Both of my parents were chain smokers. My father, a physician, quit when I was young, but our house reeked of secondhand smoke, and my mother continued to smoke until she could no longer hold a cigarette. After long illnesses, both parents died from lung cancer. It was a nightmare and one I would spare other families. As a grandmother of three, I hope my grandkids will never smoke. Approximately 4,000 children try a cigarette for the first time each day. By the end of this week, thousands of Americans will have died from tobacco-related diseases, and thousands more will become new, regular users. We can take a big step forward in breaking this deadly cycle by giving the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products. That's all this bill does, and it is long overdue. The legislation we are voting on today is the product of a decades'- long crusade by our colleague Henry Waxman, by Senator Edward Kennedy, by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and by scores of public health groups. It is a big downpayment on health care reform. Mr. Speaker, California alone spends over $9 billion annually treating tobacco-related diseases. This critical funding could be put towards our failing health care infrastructure and towards making health care more affordable for everyone. With its passage today, I hope this bill will become law promptly, and I hope that the CBO will find the way to score the savings that come from this and from other preventative health measures. If we can do this, we can find a way to cut the cost of health care reform, of national health care reform, which is urgently needed this year. So, as I see it, this is a downpayment on health care reform, and it's a downpayment on the health of our children and of our grandchildren. This bill will save lives and scarce resources. This bill is a slam dunk. Vote ``aye'' on the rule and on the underlying legislation.

Ms. HARMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. HARMAN. I appreciate what you've said, and I do appreciate long years of collaboration on very important issues, especially affecting the military, like sexual harassment and this wave of sexual assault and rape against women. I appreciate that very much. On this issue, sure, let's work together on a harm reduction strategy. I think this bill, which I'm for and you're obviously against, goes only partway. There is a lot more to do, and a lot of people have terrible stories like mine, and I embrace the fact that you're against smoking. I surely hope that becomes a much more prevalent practice by our young kids. That's what my purpose here is. I never want anyone else to have the kind of tragedy that I had with parents who were addicted like mine.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize American Honda Motor Company--whose North American headquarters is located in my Congressional District--on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Established on June 11, 1959 in a small Los Angeles storefront, a handful of Honda associates began selling motorcycles. Fifty years later, American Honda has grown from a single office into a company with significant investments throughout the U.S. and is a leader in fuel economy, safety and environmental technology. In the midst of the of 1973 oil crisis, Honda introduced the fuel- efficient Civic, marking its official entry into the U.S. market. Two years later, it began market research and new model development activities in America, which today encompass 13 facilities with the capability of complete product creation. Fast forward to the 1990s, when Honda continued its environmental leadership through investment in advanced internal combustion engines and the introduction in 1999 of the first mass-produced hybrid vehicle in the U.S. On Earth Day of this year, Honda launched the 2010 Insight, a price competitive and exciting new hybrid design. Starting with eight sales associates in 1959, Honda today employs nearly 28,000 direct employees whose jobs include design, development, manufacturing, sales and service of products ranging from automobiles, motorcycles, ATVs, personal watercraft, outboard marine engines, power equipment and an advanced light jet. Honda's flagship office in Torrance, California employs almost 2,400 people at its sprawling and energy efficient campus. American Honda has 11 manufacturing plants in the U.S. with two more under construction, 13 research and development facilities, and regional sales, parts, service and finance offices across America. Honda buys parts and materials from 545 U.S. companies in 34 states with annual purchases exceeding $17.5 billion in 2008. More than just a carmaker, Honda prides itself on community stewardship. Its U.S. charity arm provided over $1.8 million in grants last year--including $75,000 for a local firefighter program. I offer my hearty congratulations to American Honda, which has established a half century of commitment to investing in this country, innovation and strong environmental leadership. May the next 50 years be just as productive.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the chairman for yielding to me and I rise in strong opposition to this Republican substitute, and in strong support of the underlying bill, H.R. 1886, to provide long-term nonmilitary aid to a country in the crosshairs of the effort by the Taliban to expand its reach in South Asia. H.R. 1886 will help persuade the Pakistani people that their future lies with a stable and moderate democratic government and not with an authoritarian, theocratic terrorist organization. But a key to doing this is important language in the bill ensuring access of U.S. investigators to persons suspected of engaging in nuclear proliferation. This issue is critical, this language must become law, and I disagree strongly with some in this House and in the other Chamber who say these requirements are overly restrictive and counterproductive. Pakistan's history of nuclear weapons development has contributed to instability in South Asia and paved the way for A.Q. Khan's insidious and highly profitable proliferation network. Additional and substantial nonmilitary support provided by the U.S. must assure that the security threat to the U.S., which is represented by this network, is minimized. For at least a decade, A.Q. Khan's illicit network was the most attractive shortcut for nations and rogue organizations interested in acquiring the materials and know-how to build a nuclear device. After illegally securing the capability for Pakistan, which made him a hero at home and a pariah abroad, Khan and his network sold it to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Despite billions of U.S. dollars in aid, former Pakistani President Musharraf pardoned Khan, and earlier this year the Islamabad High Court released him from house arrest. H.R. 1886, but not the Republican substitute, declares that the U.S. will work with Pakistan to ensure our investigators access to suspected proliferators and to restrict proliferators from travel or other activity that could result in further proliferation. It also incorporates, as the chairman said, language from a bill introduced by several of us to require a presidential assessment and restrict military aid in the future.

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman. It will restrict military aid in the future unless Pakistan cooperates in efforts to dismantle its nuclear weapons supplier networks. It is the right thing to do, and I thank the committee for doing it. The world cannot afford another Libya, Iran or North Korea, and we certainly don't want a new nuclear power called al Qaeda.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, less than a mile from this Chamber, a hate crime occurred yesterday. It occurred in a place of remembrance--a sanctuary. That sanctuary, the Holocaust Museum, has meaning for everyone here. It has special meaning for me because my father was a refugee from that Holocaust, and most of his family was killed in it. One exhibit in the Holocaust Museum is a wall of shoes taken from innocent men, women and children before they were gassed to death. Who were they? What lives would they have led? Would their children have ended up serving here as I have? In the memory of Officer Johns and 6 million innocent Jews, it is time, past time, to end hate.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, some of the most powerful military and intelligence satellites in the world are designed and produced in my Congressional District. They are remarkably formidable tools that daily assist our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and are indispensable in learning and thwarting the plans of those who would do us harm. But imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if one of these satellites were directed on your neighborhood or home, a school or place or worship--and without an adequate legal framework or operating procedures in place for regulating their use. I daresay the reaction might be that Big Brother has finally arrived and the black helicopters can't be far behind. Yet this is precisely what the Department of Homeland Security proposes to do in standing up the benign-sounding National Applications Office, or NAO. Despite objections by the civil liberties community, a series of letters sent by Members of Congress, an established record of opposition by the House Homeland Security Committee and the prior fencing of funds, the DHS has requested funding in the classified annex to its FY2010 budget for the NAO. The Appropriations Committee has repeatedly expressed skepticism about the need for the NAO, and fenced funding for the office last year. I understand that the Committee intends to send a strong message again this year. I introduce two bills today to stop the Department of Homeland Security from moving ahead with the misguided National Applications Office. The first bill, introduced with Representative Norm Dicks, prohibits DHS from expending any funds on this office. The second bill de- authorizes the NAO, requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to close the office immediately. As proposed, the NAO, housed in the DHS Office of Intelligence & Analysis, the NAO would manage the tasking of military intelligence satellites over the United States--despite the absence a of clear legal framework, legitimate Posse Comitatus concerns, and even though the Interior Department already has existing circumscribed authority to deploy satellites over large-scale public events or natural disasters. In its current form, the NAO would enable a group of undefined law enforcement and homeland security ``users'' greater access to imagery collection capabilities of the intelligence community--purportedly to supplement data already available during disasters or to aid in ``investigations.'' It would serve as a clearinghouse for requests by law enforcement, border security, and other domestic homeland security agencies to access real-time, high-quality feeds from spy satellites. Except law enforcement officials haven't asked for the additional capability and major law enforcement organizations do not believe it is necessary. The new DHS leadership has assured me in my role as the Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and Terrorism Risk Assessment that the issue is under review. Although Congress last year withheld most funding for the NAO, the Department has again budgeted for the office (the exact amount is classified) without prior notification of the relevant congressional committees. Well, not if we can help it. Today, we introduce legislation to shut down the NAO--period.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, displayed prominently in my district office is an autographed medal featuring the POW/MIA flag. It was given to me and signed by Newt Heisley, the designer of the famous image. The black-and-white flag is a symbol of a Nation's gratitude, respect and commitment to those who never came back. In 1998, legislation I authored was signed into law mandating that the flag be flown above Federal buildings on six days a year, including Veterans and Memorial Day. We will never forget. Newt Heisley died on May 18, at 88. He led a rich life committed to serving his country, to family, and to his artistic passion--forces that would ultimately inform the design of his seminal work. In the early 1940s, after graduating from Syracuse University with a Fine Arts degree, Heisley joined the Army Air Forces--where he served heroically as a pilot in the Pacific Theatre in World War II. After the war, Heisley put his artistic talent to work, joining an advertising agency in New Jersey--where he lived with his wife, Bunny, and son, Jeffrey. Hoping to follow in his father's footsteps, Jeffrey entered Marine Corps training but returned emaciated and sick with hepatitis. Soon after his son's homecoming in 1971, Heisley was tasked with designing a flag for the National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia. Heisley settled on a silhouette of a gaunt man, barbed wire and guard tower. Below that, he wrote ``You are not forgotten.'' To Heisley's surprise, the flag became a national icon. In 1988, it flew over the White House for the first time, and in 1990, Congress adopted it as the official symbol of appreciation for POWs and MIAs. Despite the newfound fame, Heisley kept his humility. ``I did it for the men who were prisoners of war or missing in action. They're the real heroes,'' he told the Denver Post in 2002, the same year he wrote his autobiography, Faith Under Fire. This Memorial Day, I will be thinking of them--and Newt Heisley. In words of my dear friend Dave Albert, the former Lomita Councilman, whose failed attempt to get his local post office to fly the POW/MIA flag inspired the 1998 law, Heisley ``was a true patriot for the POW/ MIA cause, and he will never be forgotten.''

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Chairman Oberstar and this important legislation--and to address provisions that relate to staffing air traffic control towers. Safety is the most crucial and fundamental feature of America's aviation system. Experience is a huge component of safety. This was demonstrated by the heroic landing by Captain Sullenberger on the Hudson River this past January. It was also demonstrated by air traffic controllers on 9/11, when the national aviation system was shut down and they landed all planes across the country safely. In this decade, we have seen a significant increase in the number of air traffic controllers retiring. As a result, there has been a need to hire and train new air traffic controllers. Our aviation system has been forced to hire a very large number of new controllers very quickly--no small feat, given the high level of skill and training necessary to do the job. But we can't cut corners with filling crucial positions. I have concerns because the FAA counts controllers who are still training and not fully certified as staff when determining if an air traffic facility is fully staffed. According to the FAA's ``A Plan for the Future 10-year Strategy for the Air Traffic Control Workforce 2009-2018,'' Appendix A states ``These (staffing) ranges include the number of controllers needed to perform the work. While most of the work is accomplished by CPCs, work is also being performed in facilities by CPC-ITs and position-qualified developments who are proficient, or ``checked out'', in specific sectors or positions and handles workload independently.'' For the clarification, CPCs are certified professional controllers and CPC-ITs are certified professional controllers in training, those that transferred from other facilities, and developmentals are new hires. Trainees are used in the airport in my district, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)--the fourth busiest airport tower in the United States. According to an April 2009 Department of Transportation Inspector General report: ``As of December 2008 . . . 20 percent of LAX's controller workforce was in training.'' Trainees lack the same amount of experience as certified controllers, and these skills should not be learned on the job. We need to ensure that safety is not compromised at LAX and at other towers across the country. That is why I support sections, 607, ``FAA Air Traffic Controller Staffing'' and 608, ``Assessment of Training Programs for Air Traffic Controllers.'' Section 607 authorizes a National Academy of Sciences study on FAA's assumptions and methods to determine staffing needs for air traffic controllers. Section 608 authorizes a study by the FAA to assess the adequacy of training programs for air traffic controllers. These studies will provide us with information to determine if we have enough experienced air controllers staffing our aviation system. If we don't, we must ensure that only those with the training and experience necessary keep the flying public safe and fill these positions. I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for his leadership on this legislation and for including these important provisions in the bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and tell him we miss him on the Homeland Security Committee. Mr. Speaker, I am keenly aware of the economic hardship faced by people in my district and all over the country and the heartfelt questions being raised about the costs and policies involved in this bill. After careful review, however, I believe the bill is needed, and the policies it funds reflect a change in direction from failed Bush administration strategies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the West Bank, all locations I have visited on several trips this past year. We are ending the combat mission in Iraq, a policy I strongly support. We are also embracing a strategy for Afghanistan, which makes governance, and not projection of military force, the top priority. Mission success there will only come from efforts to eliminate corruption and help the central and local governments provide essential services to the Afghan people; otherwise, that country will revert to a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists intent on attacking the United States and our allies. Pakistan is even more dangerous because of its huge population, a military larger than ours, and its nuclear arsenal. This bill funds nonmilitary aid and counterinsurgency training to enable Pakistani forces to defeat the growing Taliban threat inside their borders. A promising security program in the West Bank is also supported, a key building block to a viable and independent Palestinian state. The bill makes explicit that no Palestinian funding will go to Hamas, which continues to rearm and threaten Israel. For the future, as has been discussed, funding for our troops in harm's way in missions like these will be on budget and fully debated through the regular process in Congress. This is yet another good course correction by the Obama administration, and one I have long advocated. This is a sound bill and a sound rule. Vote ``aye'' on both.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chair, one of the most momentous votes I have cast as a Member of Congress occurred in my first year of service. It was a vote for President Clinton's budget, which made some difficult choices--among them, cutting spending and raising taxes to balance the federal budget. While controversial, I knew the Clinton budget charted the best course for the U.S. economy over the long run. It came as no surprise, but my support for the Clinton budget became the primary issue in my first reelection campaign, which I won by only a whisker. Many of my colleagues were not so fortunate. Today, the country is again in a perilous economic position--much more so than in 1993. And a new President is again outlining an ambitious economic agenda that could transform American society. As in 1993, I intend to support the budget. President Obama inherited an economy and federal balance sheet in total disarray. He has made the difficult decision to prioritize long-delayed investments in health care reform, clean energy, and education, and to pay for them with responsible reversals of Bush Tax cuts for the most fortunate among us. I believe he has done so in an honest manner by, among other things, putting the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on budget for the first time. The budget isn't perfect--no budget is. I would prefer more deficit reduction in its out years. But the President has his priorities right, and is making the investments that this nation has put off for too long. This Congress should support him and pass this budget.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is a personal issue for me. I have experienced the tragedy that afflicts many tobacco users and their loved ones. Both of my parents were chain-smokers in their early years. My mother and her friends started smoking in their teen years because they thought it was cool. My father, a physician, quit smoking when I was young, but our house reeked of secondhand smoke, and my mother continued to smoke until she could no longer hold a cigarette. Both parents died of lung cancer. It was a nightmare, one I would spare other families. Now as a grandmother of three, I hope my grandkids will never smoke. Mr. Speaker, approximately 4,000 kids try a cigarette for the first time each day. By the end of this week, thousands of Americans will have died from tobacco-related diseases and thousands more will become new, more regular users like my parents were. We can take a big step towards breaking this deadly cycle by giving the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products. This bill, which passed this House last July by a huge margin, is the product of a long crusade by my California colleague, Henry Waxman, and is a big down payment on health care reform. Mr. Speaker, California alone spends over $9 billion annually treating tobacco-related diseases; $9 billion could be far better spent on a failing health care infrastructure and increased access to health care. This bill will save lives and scarce resources. Vote ``aye'' on the rule and ``aye'' on the bill.