Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan and I have co-authored H.R. 1786, a bill that will help Americans transition from older, energy-wasting washing machines, refrigerators, and other household appliances to newer, super-efficient versions. According to the Department of Energy, appliances currently account for about 20 percent of energy bills in a typical household. Many of these ``clunkers'' are the products of another era--manufactured years (sometimes decades) ago, when technology was antiquated and efficiency a low priority. Removing old, inefficient appliances from circulation will go a long way toward cutting energy consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our bill will task the DOE with creating a ``Best-in-Class'' appliance program to provide financial ``bonuses'' to retailers for every Best-in-Class product sold (defined as the top 10 percent of models in the product class, in terms of efficiency), and to manufacturers that mass produce Best-in-Class appliances. Retailers who participate in the program must provide a government- funded ``bounty'' (a reduction in price for a new, more efficient appliance) to consumers who surrender old appliances. Experience shows that many consumers hoard old appliances--perhaps moving them from the kitchen to the basement--eliminating the potential energy savings resulting from the purchase of a newer appliance. This trade-in feature will help take these clunkers completely out of circulation, substantially accelerating our transition to an energy-efficient economy. This bill is a consensus product, and is endorsed by the NRDC and leading industry groups. We urge its swift passage.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, in 2007, Congressman Upton and I introduced legislation--which became law as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act--that will revolutionize the way Americans light their homes. Our legislation bans the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent light bulb by 2012, phases out remaining inefficient light bulbs by 2014, and requires that light bulbs be at least three times as efficient as today's 100-watt incandescent bulb by 2020. That bill was the product of bipartisan and bicameral efforts to forge a consensus between industry and environmental groups. The result was not only broadly accepted, it was groundbreaking. The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that the provisions will eventually save $18 billion in energy costs every year, and prevent the emission of 100 million tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030. That's the equivalent of taking 20 million cars off the road. Today, we will introduce legislation that builds on this success by setting efficiency standards for outdoor lighting. Outdoor lighting currently consumes approximately 4.4% of all the electricity produced in the United States. Most of this lighting is currently provided by outdated and inefficient technologies. Our bill sets efficiency standards to phase out these inefficient technologies (which include incandescent and halogen lights), paving the way for more efficient and cost-effective lights (such as super- efficient light emitting diodes, or LEDs). The first standard will be set in 2011, the second in 2013, and the last in 2015. The Department of Energy would then have the authority to set rules that raise efficiency standards even further. The bill also requires outdoor lights to come with bi-level controls, which permit users to alter the amount of light emitted. You don't need the same level of brightness at dusk as you do in the middle of the night. This is important, because these controls will give cities, counties, and other users more control over their own energy usage, empowering them to maximize their own energy conservation efforts. Finally, like in 2007, we protect the efforts of early innovators such as California, which has already passed an outdoor lighting standard. Our bill allows California to fully implement its law before imposing nationwide preemption. The energy savings that will flow from these efficiency improvements are stunning. A leading industry group estimates that this bill could eventually reduce energy usage from outdoor lighting by more than 25%, saving more than $6 billion in electricity costs every year. That's the equivalent of more than 50 coal fired power stations. And like our 2007 legislation, we are proud that this bill is a bipartisan, consensus effort forged after extensive discussions between leading environmental and industry groups. The United States will not be able to get its arms around the twin, daunting challenges of global climate change and dependence on oil until we pursue efficiency and energy conservation wherever it is technologically feasible. We believe that this bill, like its 2007 counterpart, is a vital and necessary piece of the solution. We urge its swift passage.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, one of the most important challenges confronting the intelligence community is learning the nature of and damage done by the worldwide network in nuclear centrifuge technology, bomb components and training run for almost two decades by A. Q. Khan-- the revered ``father'' of his country's nuclear program. Considered a pariah abroad but a hero at home, that task got a lot tougher when Pakistan's High Court ordered Khan released from house arrest last month. At the recent Wehrkunde Security Conference in Munich, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi astonished delegates, telling us that his government had not decided whether to challenge the court decision but that Pakistan would continue to monitor Khan. For those who stay awake at night worrying about Iran's increasing mastery of centrifuge technology and the ability of terror groups to access nuclear components, Pakistan's action is distressing. When Khan ``confessed'' in 2004 to his illegal nuclear dealings, he was promptly placed under ``house arrest'' and pardoned by then President Pervez Musharraf. The U.S. government was denied access to him, and was never able to question him about what he did and what else he knew. Today, we introduce legislation to condition future military aid to Pakistan on two things: that the Pakistani Government make A.Q. Khan available for questioning and that it monitor Khan's activities. This much we do know. As a university student in Europe in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Khan earned degrees in metallurgical engineering from institutions in Holland and Belgium. In 1972, he began working for the Dutch partner of a uranium enrichment consortium and almost immediately raised eyebrows for repeated visits to a facility he was not cleared to see and for inquiries made about technical data unrelated to his own assignments. Dutch intelligence quietly began to monitor him. In 1974, following India's first nuclear test, Khan offered his expertise to Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Later that year, Khan's company assigned him to work on Dutch translations of advanced, German-designed centrifuges--data to which he had unsupervised access for 16 days. By 1975, the damage appears to have been done. Pakistan began to purchase components for its domestic uranium enrichment program from European suppliers, and Khan was transferred away from enrichment work due to concern about his activities. In December, he abruptly returned to Pakistan with blueprints for centrifuges and other components and detailed lists of suppliers. Convicted in absentia by the Dutch government for nuclear espionage, beginning in the mid-1980s, Khan is widely believed to have provided nuclear weapons technology to Iran, North Korea, Libya and possibly Syria and Iraq. His network involved front companies and operatives in Dubai, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland and Turkey. Though much of the network was taken down following his confession, there is no conclusive evidence that it was destroyed. Khan is again a loose nuke scientist with proven ability to sell the worst weapons to the worst people. Hopefully, appropriate Pakistani officials worry as we do that their civilians could become nuclear targets--as could NATO soldiers in neighboring Afghanistan or civilians in any number of Western countries. Our bill provides a path for the Zardari government to do the right thing--to allow the U.S. to evaluate the full extent of A. Q. Khan's proliferation activities in order to halt any ongoing or future harm.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, no one can forget the 2001 anthrax letter attacks, which killed five people, paralyzed the Postal Service, and affects the flow of mail to Capitol Hill to this day. In response, Congress expanded the Select Agent Program, which monitors the possession and use of potentially dangerous biological agents and toxins. But, the program's authorization expired in 2007, and serious problems persist. Earlier this month, researchers at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases received another wake-up call. They discovered serious gaps in recordkeeping after finding germ samples not listed in their database. Since then, the Army has suspended some research at the lab while an inventory of dangerous agents is conducted. That is why it is so important to reintroduce today the Select Agent Program and Biosafety Improvement Act with my friend Mike Rogers in the House and Senators Kennedy and Burr in the Senate. The bill requires an assessment of the government's ability to track and control the dangerous substances that can be used to construct dangerous weapons. It reauthorizes and updates the Select Agent Program, which limits access to and controls the transfer of dangerous biological agents and toxins. It requires the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the program and recommend ways in which it can be restructured, to enhance biosecurity and international scientific collaboration. It requires that the program consider newly discovered agents--such as genetically modified organisms, synthetic compounds, and other agents identified in Homeland Security risk assessments--to ensure that its database is current and comprehensive. It encourages the sharing of information with State emergency planning officials, which is vital to ensuring that first responders have the tools they need to prevent or respond to an attack. And it ensures minimum biosecurity and biosafety standards for the training of workers in the laboratories that deal with the most dangerous agents. The threat of biological terrorism on U.S. soil is real and there is still room to improve the way our country tracks and transfers potentially dangerous materials that could be used against us in an attack. This bill will help that effort. Nearly a decade has passed since weaponized anthrax was anonymously mailed as an attack on Americans. We must act swiftly to improve our capabilities to eliminate these dangers.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me highlight two issues. First, temporary increases in COBRA, FMAP and DSH coverage, a lifeline for hard-hit families and communities. Mr. Waxman played the critical role in the conference on these issues, and constituents in our adjoining congressional districts are very grateful. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center is the only level 1 trauma center near top terror targets, like LAX and the Ports of LA and Long Beach. Without DSH, Harbor will have no surge capacity to treat victims of terror and natural disasters. Second, energy innovation and efficiency. This is a stimulus bill, and the smart grid and transportation projects it funds are a jobs engine. It sets the framework for future climate change legislation. Mr. Chairman, enhanced safety net and clean energy jobs are good reasons to vote ``aye.''

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his leadership on the Rules Committee and also on the important issue of keeping people in their homes. Home foreclosures are mounting. They're an epidemic in his district, and I want our colleagues to know that another Member from California is noticing the leadership that he provides on that issue. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill to provide a one-time--let me stress--one-time delay in the DTV transition. I sympathize with Americans who are unprepared for this transition, many of whom are elderly, minorities, or residents of rural areas. Television is important to our lives and can serve as a vital resource in times of emergency. So for those reasons, I support the legislation. At the same time, we must not forget that the DTV transition's real purpose is to improve emergency communications capabilities for first responders. The lessons of 9/11 are sadly fading. Hundreds of police and firefighters died at the World Trade Center in part because they could not talk to each other on their radios. The key to preventing this kind of tragic communication failure is to build a nationwide interoperable broadband network that will allow rescue workers from different units to talk to each other even though they operate on separate radio frequencies. The foundation for this nationwide public safety network is the spectrum that is currently used for analog television broadcasting, and only after analog operations are cleared can that spectrum be put to its best and most important use. Madam Speaker, in a perfect world this delay would not be necessary. And I want to make clear, again, that further delay should not, must not be necessary once this period ends. But this one-time delay will help protect our most vulnerable citizens while we get on with designing the build-out of the public safety network that is our ultimate goal. It has been almost 8 years since the 9/11 attacks. Police, firefighters, and EMTs all over the country--and the families they protect--are counting on us to finally get this right.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank our chairman for yielding and commend him for his role on this bill and the two that will follow. Let me also point out, Madam Speaker, that our committee is an extremely bipartisan committee. This legislation, I would say to the manager on the Republican side, was reported unanimously by our subcommittee last year, unanimously by our full committee, and was adopted by voice vote on the House floor. This legislation, which applies only to the Department of Homeland Security, was the result of a very careful set of hearings. There may be arguments to deal with this subject in other parts of the government, but I believe this legislation, and the careful way it was considered, is a model for what the House should be doing. And I urge its prompt enactment again. Madam Speaker, America's first preventers faced an enormous challenge 2 weeks ago, as Chairman Thompson said. They protected key members of the old and new administrations, especially the First Families. Though the so-called ``Purple Tunnel of Doom'' incident meant many ticket holders could not get in, a thoroughly preventable fiasco, our first preventers did manage a crowd of millions for the largest American Presidential inauguration ever, working almost seamlessly with Federal counterparts to do so. The most important part of this extraordinary feat was the efficient sharing of accurate, actionable and timely information, especially information about threats, with police officers on the ground. Now that the inauguration is over, local law enforcement shouldn't have to return to business as usual. Information sharing, we should all be reminded, was a huge problem leading up to 9/11. And 8 years later, we still have unfinished business. Though hard to believe, sheriffs and police chiefs cannot readily access the information they need to prevent or disrupt a potential terrorist attack because those at the Federal level resist sharing information. Over-classification and pseudoclassification, which is stamping with any number of sensitive-but-unclassified markings, remain rampant. Protecting sources and methods is the only valid reason to refuse to share information. It is no exaggeration that people die and our ability to monitor certain targets can be compromised if sources and methods are revealed. As one who served on our Intelligence Committee for 8 years, I saw this up close and personal. But, Madam Speaker, classifying information to protect turf or avoid embarrassment is wrong. As I mentioned, I served for many years on the Intelligence Committee and became incredibly frustrated with this practice, which the Bush administration elevated to an art form. And sadly, the practice has spread to our newest Federal agency, the Department of Homeland Security. Madam Speaker, the next attack in the United States will not be stopped because a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. found out about it in advance. It will be the cop on the beat who is familiar with the rhythms and nuances of his or her own neighborhood who will foil that attack. H.R. 553 is an attempt to establish a gold standard at DHS when it comes to classification practices. It requires that all classified intelligence products created at the department be simultaneously created in a standard unclassified format if such a product would help local law enforcement keep us safe. This is unprecedented. Furthermore, the bill requires portion marking, the identification of paragraphs in a document that are unclassified, permitting the remainder of the document to remain unclassified. I misspoke, Madam Speaker. The portion marking is for portions that are classified, to leave the remainder of the document unclassified. The measure will promote accountability by requiring the DHS Inspector General to randomly sample classified intelligence products and identify problems that exist in those samples. It also directs the Secretary to develop a plan to track electronically how and where information classified by DHS is disseminated, so that misuse can be prevented. And finally, the legislation requires the Secretary to establish extensive annual training on the proper use of the classification regime, and penalties for staff who repeatedly fail to comply with applicable classification policies. Madam Speaker, a key to homeland security is personal preparedness. A prepared public is not likely to be terrorized. Access to important unclassified information is essential to ensure preparedness, and this bill protects the public's right to know. It enjoys broad support by privacy and civil liberties groups. Madam Speaker, on behalf of first preventers and first responders everywhere, I urge passage of this essential bipartisan legislation, again commend our committee members and staff for their work on this legislation, and urge its prompt consideration following our action by the Senate.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chair, the American economy is foundering in some very troubled waters. Business after business--including some of the biggest names in corporate America--is collapsing. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their jobs in the last few months alone--more than 55,000 in just the last few days. The unemployment rate is skyrocketing, approaching levels not seen in generations. Millions of Americans have lost their homes, and millions more may lose theirs as adjustable rate mortgages reset and the foreclosure crisis spreads. Lending has barely improved since the credit markets froze last fall, despite a $350 million (and soon to be $700 million) infusion of taxpayer funds. California has been particularly hard hit. 523,624 Californians lost their homes last year--a five-fold increase from 2006 levels. The state is running a $42 billion budget deficit, and may have little alternative but to cut health and education funding to the bone. Los Angeles County alone is looking at a $173 million shortfall in health care funding next year--the amount it takes to keep the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center operating. My constituents are hurting. Credit unions and small banks, which do much of the day-to-day lending that keeps communities functioning, have laid off hundreds of workers. Car dealerships that have been pillars of the community for decades are closing. Reductions in state funding are forcing school districts to consider drastic staff reductions. In times like these, the federal government has an obligation to take swift, decisive action. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes the stimulus needed at this perilous moment, and I intend to support it. A few provisions of the bill stand out as particularly crucial. This legislation includes nearly $200 billion to help states maintain essential health care and education programs. In California, these funds could be the vital lifeline that keeps hospitals operating, avoids the layoffs of thousands of teachers, and helps the state stave off bankruptcy. The bill includes a $20 billion investment in the development of health information technology systems. Health IT will not only generate thousands of new high-paying jobs, it will reduce costs of providing care, help reduce errors, and provide a down-payment on the development of a universal health care system. The bill includes $30 billion to help build a new clean energy infrastructure that will grow green jobs now and lay the foundation for long-term energy independence. The $11 billion investment to upgrade our electric grid is an especially crucial first step toward the deployment of energy efficiency programs, the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, and the transmission of energy produced by renewable sources. The bill also makes a long-overdue investment in our nation's education system, with more than $150 billion going to Head Start, kindergarten, public elementary and secondary schools, and college programs. This spending--along with a renewed focus on performance standards and new, creative approaches to teaching--will help ensure that our children have the skills to compete in the global economy in the years to come. This is not a perfect bill. One can question whether some of this spending would be more appropriately considered in an ordinary appropriations bill, and whether a small uptick in paychecks caused by tax cuts will lead to much new spending. I hope that the bill can be improved as it moves through the legislative process. But the package is, on the whole, worthy of support. It may not be the only step we must take to revitalize our economy, but it is a necessary one. I urge its swift passage.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, today I voted to disapprove the release of the second half of the so-called TARP funds. The Senate has already approved the release, so mine is essentially a protest vote. But it is a protest that should be heard. The Bush Administration presented the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to Congress as an asset purchase program. We were told that the Treasury Department would use the funds primarily to purchase mortgage-backed securities and other toxic assets, and then banks and credit unions would use their cleaned-up balance sheets to free up credit while the government helped renegotiate home mortgages. The focus was supposed to be about keeping people in their homes. But looking back, it feels more like a classic bait and switch. Rather than spend the money as promised, the Bush Administration took advantage of loopholes in the law to funnel money directly to banks, who have been loathe to part with it. And the Bush Administration did this with scant oversight or accountability. We still have little idea how the first $350 billion was spent, or whether much of it made any difference. What is clear is that little of the funds went to the small banks and credit unions that actually keep our communities growing. I understand that only one bank holding company in my district, out of dozens of struggling community banks and credit unions, has received any help under the TARP. The TARP has essentially become a $350 billion bank consolidation fund. And in the meantime, the key driver behind this crisis--home foreclosures--has been all but ignored. My constituents have noticed, and they continue to express overwhelming disapproval of the way the program has been run thus far. Yesterday, I voted for H.R. 384, Chairman Frank's TARP Reform and Accountability Act, which I believe would have made vital changes to the TARP--including the adoption of a home foreclosure program modeled after the one proposed by FDIC Chair Sheila Bair. But I understand that the Senate has no plans to take up the Frank Bill, and instead will rely on assurances from NEC Chairman Larry Summers that the Obama Administration will use the second $350 billion responsibly. Larry Summers is a friend and an enormous talent, and I have great respect for President Obama and his team. But Congress is the constitutionally designated steward of taxpayer dollars. We should insist on the limitations in the Frank bill before releasing another $350 billion. I expect to support a robust and effective stimulus bill. I wish the second tranche of TARP had been totally revamped and added to the stimulus proposal.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, America's first preventers will face an enormous challenge next Tuesday. They must protect key members of this and the next Administration--especially the first families--and manage crowds of millions for the largest American Presidential Inauguration to date, working seamlessly with federal counterparts to do so. Unprecedented efforts will be made to share information--especially information about threats. Information sharing was a huge problem leading up to 9/11, and 7 years later, we still have work to do. When the Inauguration is over, local law enforcement shouldn't have to return to business-as-usual--where it is still difficult to get accurate, actionable, and timely information about threats and tactics to police officers in the field. Though hard to believe, sheriffs and police chiefs can't readily access the information they need to prevent or disrupt a potential terrorist attack because those at the federal level resist sharing information. Over-classification and pseudo-classification--stamping with any number of sensitive but unclassified markings--remain rampant. Protecting sources and methods is the only valid reason to refuse to share information. It is no exaggeration that people die and our ability to monitor certain targets can be compromised, if sources and methods are revealed. But classifying information for the wrong reasons--to protect turf or to avoid embarrassment--is wrong. During my 8 years on the House Intelligence Committee, I became incredibly frustrated with this practice--which the Bush Administration elevated to an art-form. And, sadly, the practice has spread to our newest federal agency: the Department of Homeland Security. Madam Speaker, the next attack in the United States will not be stopped because a bureaucrat in Washington, DC found out about it in advance. It will be the cop on the beat who is familiar with the rhythms and nuances of his or her own neighborhood who will foil that attack. H.R. 553, the Reducing Over-Classification Act, and which passed the House unanimously in the 110th Congress, is an attempt to establish a gold standard at DHS when it comes to classification practices. It requires that all classified intelligence products created at the Department be simultaneously created in a standard unclassified format if such a product would help local law enforcement keep us safe. This is unprecedented. Furthermore, the bill requires portion marking--the identification of paragraphs in a document that are classified--permitting the remainder of the document to remain unclassified. The measure will promote accountability by requiring the DHS Inspector General to sample randomly classified intelligence products and identify problems that exist in those samples. It also directs the Secretary to develop a plan to track electronically how and where information classified by DHS is disseminated so that misuse can be prevented. Finally, the legislation requires the Secretary to establish extensive annual training on the proper use of the classification regime, and penalties for staff who repeatedly fail to comply with applicable classification policies. A key to homeland security is personal preparedness. A prepared public is not likely to be terrorized. Access to important non- classified information is essential to ensure preparedness, and this bill protects the public's right to know. It enjoys support by privacy and civil liberty groups. Madam Speaker, on behalf of first preventers and first responders everywhere, I urge passage of this essential bipartisan legislation, and its prompt consideration in the Senate.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, today we are introducing legislation that will begin a long-needed course correction in U.S. interrogation policies. In the months and years after the September 11 terrorist attacks, I repeatedly urged the Bush administration to establish a legal framework that allowed the United States to identify, detain, and interrogate those who would harm us while protecting our fundamental values. Instead, the administration claimed for itself the right to ignore core provisions of U.S. law regarding the treatment of detainees. It brushed aside international agreements like the Geneva Convention, which have both protected our troops and set the bar for human rights. The result is that United States has paid a steep price in eroded moral authority. We've flouted the very legal protections that we've tried to export to the rest of the world. We've undermined the international human rights standards that we helped create. And we've provided a huge recruiting tool to al Qaeda. For many years, the sponsors of this legislation have fought to restore respect for the law and human rights to our detention and interrogation policies. Now, with the election of a new President, we believe that goal is within reach. This legislation is an essential first step. First, the bill requires the closure of the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay. The prison is so widely viewed as illegitimate, so plainly inconsistent with America's proud legal traditions, that it has become a stinging symbol of our tarnished standing abroad. The Supreme Court has brought the curtain down on the legal fiction on which the prison was premised. It's time for Congress to take the next step and close it permanently. Our bill would require the President to close the facility within 1 year of enactment and give him a range of choices for dealing with the detainees. These options include transfer to a detainee's country of origin, so long as that country provides certain assurances regarding treatment of the detainee; transfer to a facility in the United States to be tried before military or civilian authorities, like the first 1993 World Trade Center bombers, who are currently being held in Supermax prisons in the United States; transfer to a qualified international tribunal; or, if appropriate, outright release. Second, the bill prohibits the interrogation of any individual held by a U.S. intelligence agency or its contractors using any technique or treatment not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations. Torture and abusive treatment is not only contrary to American values, the law, and international human rights agreements, there is no evidence that it yields reliable intelligence. This legislation will require that our intelligence agencies do not engage in such practices. Third, the bill forbids the Central Intelligence Agency from using a contractor or subcontractor to carry out an interrogation, ending a practice that has been fraught with abuse. Finally, the bill requires that the intelligence community provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with access to any individual in its custody, providing transparency and accountability that will restore the world's confidence in our detention and interrogation practices. The notion that our country essentially ``disappeared'' some detainees is abhorrent--we are not the Soviet Gulag or the Chilean military. The portions of the legislation relating to the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay are identical to H.R. 2212, which I introduced in the 110th Congress, and the remaining provisions are identical to legislation introduced earlier this week by Senator Dianne Feinstein. We urge swift passage in both Chambers.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him on bringing up this resolution so promptly. Madam Speaker, I've seen Israel up close and personal on almost two dozen trips. I've seen thousands of spent missiles stockpiled in Sderot, witnessed destruction of homes and buildings, and know a government official from Israel who was seriously wounded. I have also spent time on Israel's border with Lebanon, including a trip there during the 2006 Hezbollah war while rockets flew overhead. Israel, indeed any country, has a right to defend herself from attack. The U.S. must stand by our only democratic ally in the Middle East. Hamas' ability to strike Israeli cities is continuing evidence that it has been receiving illicit arms for use against Israel--no doubt with the complicity of its sponsors in Iran. However, Israelis are not the only victims. The Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank have paid a huge price, too. They have been held hostage by the Hamas leadership since its 2006 coup against the Palestinian authority. And they are being used as human shields. That said, Israel's effort must minimize civilian casualties and maximize Red Cross access. Measures to permit humanitarian aid must be sustained.

Ms. HARMAN. As this resolution states, our President must work actively to support a durable, enforceable, and sustainable cease-fire, promote a two-state solution, and encourage and strengthen moderate Palestinian voices. This House is doing its part today. Following Senate action yesterday, we signal bipartisan, bicameral support for this effort.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, every so often we encounter an individual who, wittingly or not, becomes a transformative figure--one who leaves a profound and permanent impact on countless lives and their community. Dorothy Green, founder of Heal the Bay and one of the most influential environmental leaders in California in the last generation, was such a person. An unlikely activist, Dorothy was a housewife and mother in the early 1970s when her brother was splattered with untreated sewage from an open drain at Ballona Creek, which runs directly into the Santa Monica Bay. Outraged, she convened a group of friends and activists in her living room to form what grew into the 15,000-member strong Heal the Bay. Under Dorothy's leadership, the organization has tackled everything from the health of marine life to oil spills to ocean water quality. But Dorothy's vision was much broader than the view from her living room window. She also founded the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council and the California Water Impact Network to educate Californians on water policy and to redefine how we use and think of water as a precious and limited resource. I cannot remember when I first met Dorothy Green. But I do remember being told that if I wanted to run for Congress she was the lode star on water issues. And she was! No issue was too big or too small for her, as long as it has something to do with water. From storm drains to the Peripheral Canal, she knew about it all and inspired thousands to join and support her efforts to fix dysfunctional policies. On October 13, 2008, Dorothy lost her battle with cancer. Yet her legacy will continue to motivate many. She fought for what she believed until the end. Five days before her death, she penned an op-ed piece from her hospice bed calling for sensible plans to preserve and treat the natural resource she spent her adult life defending. I am proud to have known Dorothy Green as a friend and colleague. She always focused on getting things done and never accepted the status quo. A brilliant grassroots organizer, her friends--and adversaries-- will all tell you of her relentless spirit, and modesty. She would probably tell me get to work rather than offer this tribute, but she deserves every bit of praise. The people of California and our priceless environment have lost a dear friend. I assure you, Dorothy, we will fight on.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I've seen my home state of California struggle with the Nation's highest teen pregnancy rate--the sad result being thousands of young women dealing with the catastrophic effects pregnancy can impose on their lives. They often lose out on the opportunity to obtain a high school diploma, a college degree or a promising career. For too many, dreams like these are lost at an early age. In the early 1990s, California took on the challenge to fight this epidemic and focused hard on prevention. After a decade of implementing robust initiatives, the state had lowered the rate by nearly 40 percent. Much of the success is credited to better and more accurate comprehensive sex education. Results like this are worth fighting for and this is why initiatives like Planned Parenthood's campaign--Sex Ed Week of Action--is vital to raise awareness about safe practices within our communities. These are tough, personal issues for all parents and families but as a mother and grandmother, I agree that they must be addressed. California is making strides, but there is much more to be done nationwide. As a long-time champion of comprehensive sex education, I've voiced my opposition against unproven abstinence-only education here in Congress. It is an outrage that since 1996, the Federal Government has pursued an ideological and myopic path, investing more than a $1 billion in abstinence-only programs. This has been a huge waste--and the studies prove it. A report commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services concludes that students receiving abstinence-only education are no more likely to abstain or delay sexual activity than students not receiving such instruction. California also recognized that this is a bad investment for our teens and took a commendable step forward by rejecting these funds from the Federal Government. The medical community agrees too. According to the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association and the American School Health Association, scientifically sound comprehensive sex education is the only approach that produces results--not more unwanted pregnancies. Empowering teens to make smart choices requires education that is proven to work--logical, right? The evidence is clear, comprehensive sex education is the best path to reducing unintended pregnancy, which is the goal we all share. We can't fail our teens by letting politics and ideology interfere with this basic right to information.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, recklessness on Wall Street and fecklessness in Washington have brought the American economy to the brink of disaster. Mounting corporate debts and collapsing real estate markets have all but frozen the flow of credit that is the life-blood of our system. It is now clear that without immediate and dramatic action, we face an economic calamity--not just for Wall Street, but for small businesses, communities, and families around the country. But while I agree that quick action is necessary, the Treasury Department's original three-page proposal--in essence ``Dear Congress, please send a $700 billion blank check, love, Hank.''--was a nonstarter. We have come a long way in the past week, thanks mostly to tough negotiations by Democrats and the inclusion of improvements demanded by Senator Obama, my constituents, and others. The result is legislation that I can support. The bill addresses the concerns of three important groups: families who are struggling to stay in their homes; small businesses and their employees; and taxpayers. First, the legislation requires that the government renegotiate the terms, including principal, interest rates, or duration, of any mortgage owned in whole or in part by the Federal Government to prevent foreclosures and keep people in their homes. These provisions are vitally important. The Government now controls Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together own or back nearly 50 percent of the mortgages in America, and will be purchasing many thousands of new mortgages or shares of mortgages under this bill. The bill requires that the Government use its new market power to rework many of the flawed mortgages that are at the heart of this crisis. Done right, this effort can help families avoid the wrenching experiences of foreclosure and bankruptcy. Second, it will allow all financial entities--big banks, regional banks, and local community banks--to sell off the toxic assets that have crippled the credit markets. It also allows a 1-year write-off of losses stemming from the Government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, removing a major burden from the financial hubs of our communities. This means capital that breathes life into our economy will flow not just to Wall Street, but to Artesia, Sepulveda, and Rosecrans Boulevards. As one of my constituents, a former auto mechanic, puts it: ``If there's no oil in the engine, the car won't run. You have to put the oil in from the top and clean the parts from the bottom.'' Third, the bill includes a number of provisions intended to minimize the costs to taxpayers. It requires that the Government buy assets, rather than merely cover corporate losses. These assets give the Government an equity stake in the companies it helps--like the stake Warren Buffett just bought in Goldman Sachs. Just like Buffett, taxpayers will profit from increases in these companies' stock prices when the economy recovers. The bill includes tough new oversight and transparency provisions, including an oversight board appointed by Congress. It provides funding in installments--$250 billion at first; $100 billion after the President certifies that it's necessary; and the final $350 billion only if Congress allows funding to continue. It limits executive compensation and bans so-called ``golden parachutes'' for companies participating in the program. And, if after 5 years the program has resulted in a loss to the Federal Government, the President must propose a fee on financial services companies to recoup the costs of the program. This means that those whose greed caused the problem will pay for it. The bill is by no means perfect. Among other things, my preference would have been to include provisions that allow bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages of primary homes. But as a mother of four and now grandmother of three, I know life requires compromise. Our action today does not mark the end of America's financial peril. Critical next steps must include substantial reform of the financial regulatory system, a task that will be a priority for a Democratic President and a larger Democratic majority in Congress. But passage of this bill, I am now convinced, is urgent and necessary to reassure the American people and global financial markets that our economy is secure and major reforms are coming.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, to many, Hermosa Beach is a beautiful coastal community blessed by perfect weather, endless sun and surf. But few would know that it is home to one of the oldest and strongest international exchange programs in the United States. It all started in 1967, when the Hermosa Beach City Council established a ``Sister City'' program with the citizens of Loreto, Mexico. Back then, Loreto was a small community on the pristine Baja coast of the Sea of Cortez--famous for sport fishing, whales, cave paintings and colonial missions. Its Spanish mission, founded in 1697, was the first in all of the California's. Over the past 40 years, the Hermosa Beach Sister City Association (HBSCA) has provided funding and other support for educational and humanitarian programs for Loreto. Among the most notable is the middle school student exchange program. Every spring, Hermosa Beach 7th and 8th grade students travel to Loreto--and vice versa--where they gain language skills, opportunities to learn about a different culture from host families and field trips, and lifetime memories. The HBSCA also assists the people of Loreto with critical medical care. As recently as 1998, Loreto had no emergency medical treatment facilities. Through a partnership between physicians in Loreto and Hermosa Beach, the HBSCA has been able to provide badly needed medical training and equipment, including paramedic gear and even an ambulance. Since its inception, Sister City programs have benefited both cities and their citizens. Loreto has become a home away from home for Hermosans, who have in turn helped improve the quality of life for Loretans. One of our Nation's oldest sister city programs shines as a stellar example of the impact global exchange can have on our world. I congratulate the citizens of Hermosa Beach and Loreto on achieving this impressive milestone.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, the 36th District is known for more than its pristine beaches and year-round sunshine. We have our fair share of beakers and graduated cylinders, too. It is home to groundbreaking scientific discoveries, many of which come out of the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute in Torrance, formerly known as Harbor- UCLA Research & Education Institute. For the past 55 years, this institution has served as the beating heart of the biomedical research community--the modern cholesterol test and the paramedic model for emergency care are familiar inventions that LA BioMed created. So, the news that Ken Trevett is leaving LA BioMed after 7 distinguished years as its CEO has left all of us with a sense of genuine loss. LA BioMed owes its standing in the industry in large part to Ken's ability to commercialize its medical successes. His keen business sense helped efficiently convert new medical discoveries into the technologies that have helped thousands of patients. Ken's efforts propelled LA BioMed's profile in the industry, attracting the best researchers and doctors in the country to its laboratories. And its endowment has nearly quadrupled during his tenure. Ken's success in science and business is matched by his extraordinary community service. He served as a member of the Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce, South Bay Economic Development Partnership, and the LA Economic Development Corporation, not to mention numerous board memberships at organizations like the American Heart Association. And Ken has taken time to share his expertise and wisdom in classrooms across the South Bay with the next generation of scientists, doctors, and businessmen. As a member of my ``Medicine Cabinet,'' Ken's voice, though I often rib him about his Boston accent, has played a substantial role in helping shape my decisions on health care policy. His absence will be strongly felt. I join those whose lives Ken has touched in wishing him and his family continued success at the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research in San Antonio, TX.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. He is one of the most conscientious Members of this House, and I enjoy being his partner and working together. Mr. Speaker, there is much to admire and support in this Continuing Appropriations Act. As usual, Chairmen Murtha and Edwards have crafted excellent Defense and MilCon-VA appropriations bills. Disaster relief and LIHEAP funding are critical to support, and I'm aware of many other efforts by Chairman Obey to make this CR help those in need. But the act contains two huge flaws which I would like to speak to this morning. First, the homeland security portion of the bill effectively allows some funding for the hastily erected and legally suspect National Applications Office, or NAO. The NAO is intended to make feed from U.S. defense intelligence satellites, our most powerful spy satellites, available to DHS and, in the future, to State and local law enforcement. The specific capabilities of these satellites are classified, but I can say that their ability to capture detailed visual data about activities on the ground is truly stunning. Before we stand up a new office to turn these powerful satellites toward America, I believe there must be a comprehensive legal framework in place to protect the rights and liberties of Americans. As we speak, that comprehensive framework does not exist. I agree with the GAO, which recently completed a study of the NAO, and concluded that ``DHS has not fully justified its certification that the NAO complies with applicable laws.'' The GAO says there are significant unresolved legal and policy issues regarding the use of satellite images in law enforcement. There are weak management controls to ensure compliance with the law, and unaddressed privacy and civil liberty concerns. Second, on a different topic, Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed, as are many of my constituents, that this act allows the moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf to lapse. That moratorium has been in place for two decades in Republican and Democratic administrations and Republican and Democratic Congresses. I know that this lapse is not the favored outcome of many in my party, and I recognize that a new President could reverse it, but that doesn't mean we should signal we are ready even now to impose drilling as close as 3 miles off our coasts when a State does not want that drilling. I am aware that the Republican Governor in my State does not want that drilling. According to the Bush administration's own Energy Information Administration, if we open the entire Outer Continental Shelf for drilling tomorrow, we could expect an increased domestic production of 200,000 barrels of oil per day by 2030. The world consumes around 80 million barrels of oil per day today, and so the impact on oil prices from such a minuscule increase would be, and I quote the Bush administration, ``insignificant.'' And what do we risk for this ``insignificant'' increase in supply? Well, we risk thousands of miles of environmentally sensitive and economically indispensable coastline in California, South Carolina, Florida and elsewhere, and we increase our carbon footprint. These are not risks we should take, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. She is one of the newest Members of Congress, but she is a very active Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, succeeding our late colleague, Juanita Millender-McDonald, in that position. I want to commend her for her interest in this issue and for all she does for the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach and for Los Angeles International Airport, LAX, which is near her district, surrounded by my district and represented by Ms. Waters who is a coauthor of this legislation. I rise in strong support of this bill, one that I introduced in the past two Congresses and which, as you heard, has already passed the Senate. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, sitting at a desk trying to memorize a verse or tackle a math problem as jet planes roar overhead every 3 minutes. Let me repeat that. I have been there to see it. Every 3 minutes, a jet plane roars above the little school buildings in Lennox, California, immediately east of LAX. The children of Lennox, a mostly working-class community, manage amazingly well. I'm enormously proud of the fact that they win educational awards despite studying in classrooms that resemble bunkers. And yet Mr. Speaker, for the past 3 years, despite the fact that they reached agreement with LAWA, the Los Angeles World Airport Authority, to receive noise mitigation funds, they've been unable to get those funds because of a technical glitch in the law. That means, Mr. Speaker, that school construction has been stalled in Lennox and in adjacent Inglewood. So we have tried these 3 years to fix that glitch, and that is exactly what this bill will do. I want to point out--I don't think the bill's manager said this--that this bill does not require the expenditure of new funds. All it does is authorize LAWA to release funds it already has. All it does is provide emergency relief to a lot of kids in a working-class part of Los Angeles who have endured the most onerous conditions while trying to learn. I want to thank a lot of people for making possible what I hope will be a victory today: First of all, the leadership of the T&I Committee, Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica; Ms. Richardson; my co-author Ms. Waters; and Senators Boxer and Feinstein, all of whom helped get this bipartisan bill on the consent calendar today. I also want to thank former FAA Administrator Marion Blakley who, while a part of this administration, came to see Lennox, understood what the problems were, and lent her staff to us to help draft this in a way that it would get support from the administration. It has the support of the FAA, it has the support of OMB, it has the support of the Republican side of the aisle; and it's a model, in my view, of the way legislation should be developed and passed in this House. Finally, I want to thank Congressman David Dreier who made sure that we could get the bill to the floor today. He is not here because just a few days ago his mother unexpectedly passed away. I want to send my sympathy to him and his family at a tough time and note that this bill helps kids just like kids in his Southern California district. This bill does good things for education, and this bill does good things for the reputation of this House. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, but as a Representative of America's most stunning coastline, I do so with some reservations. There is much to like in this bill. It includes long-sought alternative energy tax credits, which are essential to the continued development of the emerging clean energy industry. It also requires utility companies to generate more power from renewable energy sources (following the lead of my home State of California), creates a reserve to pay for future research and development of clean renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, and requires the adoption of more energy efficient building codes. These are all serious, much-needed answers to our energy crisis-- reasoned, carefully crafted, and targeted toward moving us into a new era of clean energy. That is not, unfortunately, the path pursued in other parts of the bill, particularly those that concern off-shore drilling. We've heard a lot about drilling these days. ``Drill, baby, drill,'' or so the chant goes. It's a nice pep rally cheer, a clever soundbite. But it's not serious policy, and everybody knows it. Here are the facts. Oil is traded on a global market, which sets prices based on global supply and global demand. Given the staggering amounts of oil that the world produces and consumes every day, only a staggering amount of new supply will affect price (particularly given the skyrocketing demand for oil in China, India, and the rest of the developing world). The amount of oil off the coasts of the United States is very far from staggering. Paltry is more like it. According to the Bush Administration's own Energy Information Administration, even if we opened the entire Outer Continental Shelf for drilling tomorrow, it would take years (possibly up to 2030) for that oil to hit the market. And then, all that drilling would only increase our domestic production by 200,000 barrels of oil per day. The world consumes around 80 million barrels of oil per day. This new production would be a tiny drop in an ocean of oil. Even the Bush Administration concedes that the impact on oil prices from such a minuscule increase would be, and I quote, ``insignificant.'' And what do we risk for this ``insignificant'' increase in supply? A few oil companies will make a little more money. But we'll also put the (mostly) pristine California coastline--an environmentally fragile yet economically indispensible asset--at the mercies of chance, human fallibility, and the ability of new oil rig technology to withstand the inevitable big quake. That's not a risk that I'm willing to take. Fortunately I'm not alone. Leadership wisely gave states some discretion. The bill would forbid drilling within 50 miles of the coast, and only allow drilling from 50-100 miles if a state ``opts-in'' (affirmatively passes a law allowing drilling). I am confident that California is unlikely to ever ``opt-in.'' My strong preference is to retain the moratorium against off-shore drilling, but we don't have the votes to do that. The Democratic Leadership asserts that this compromise is necessary to avoid the calamity of a drilling free-for-all off our coasts. Many in the environmental community and leading newspaper editorial boards in California and around the country concur. In that case, I can live with it. I wish we could do better. The American public is engaged. The media is devoting front-page articles to energy issues. We have the chance to make a significant difference in the way our country thinks about and uses energy. Portions of this bill take big leaps in that direction, and Leadership should be commended for standing by these priorities. I hope that my three grandchildren will eventually be the beneficiaries of this foresight.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, today my colleague Mike Rogers of Michigan and I are introducing the House companion to a bill introduced by Senators Burr and Kennedy--the Select Agent Program and Biosafety Improvement Act. The bill will provide an important link in the chain of defenses needed to fight the potential threat of bioterrorism. The bill reauthorizes and updates the Select Agent Program, which limits access to and controls the transfer of dangerous biological agents and toxins. It requires the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the program, and recommend ways in which it can be restructured to enhance biosecurity and international scientific collaboration. It requires that the program consider newly discovered agents--such as genetically modified organisms, synthetic compounds, and other agents identified in Homeland Security risk assessments--to ensure that the list of agents is current and comprehensive. It encourages the sharing of information with state emergency planning officials, which is vital to ensuring that our first responders have the tools they need to prevent or respond to an attack. And it ensures minimum biosecurity and biosafety standards for the training of workers in the laboratories that deal with the most dangerous substances. These measures are of vital importance. Over the past several decades we have seen revolutions in technology, economics, and politics that are fundamentally changing the world we live in. The upside of these developments is obvious. The world is more prosperous, healthy, and interconnected than it has ever been before. But with these revolutions also come challenges. The same advances in biotechnology that help save lives, can also be used to develop dangerous biological agents and toxins that can take lives. The new global information infrastructure that is now the backbone of our economy can be used to spread knowledge of how to create and disperse biological weapons. It is more important than ever that the U.S. government be able to track and control the dangerous materials that can be used to construct these weapons. This bill will help that effort. In closing, I'd like to say a special word about Senator Kennedy. He has been a legislative hero of mine since my days working as a staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He and Vicki are good friends, and are in my prayers. Rep. Rogers has amassed an impressive amount of knowledge on this subject, and will play a major role in securing its passage.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I applaud my chairman, the bill's sponsors, and the bill's many supporters on a bipartisan basis for bringing such important legislation to the House floor today. Madam Speaker, this bill is personal for me. Both of my parents are part of the statistics; both of them died from lung cancer from smoking. As a mother of four and a grandmother of three so far, I am relentless in urging that they and everyone else's kids and grandkids not acquire this horrible addiction. In California, 138,000 children try a cigarette for the first time each year, and more than one-third of them become regular daily smokers. Some will die as my parents did, slowly and painfully. In my mother's case, though she knew of her dire health prognosis, she never quit smoking. I think this bill sets the right balance. It's probably as much as we can get through Congress--if we can get it through--at this time, though I would support more and will support more in the future. The bill reinstates an FDA rule that restricts tobacco marketing and sales to children. In today's consumer culture, children are most vulnerable to attractive marketing campaigns. Tobacco's campaign has been very successful. The bottom line is we need to put a stop on creating new tobacco users. The bill also requires enhanced labeling of health warnings on product packaging. More effective labeling will better educate the public on the dangerous consequences of tobacco. Given the state of our economy, it is foolhardy to load on health costs that we know--as even the bill's opponents have said--come from those addicted to smoking. California spends almost $10 billion treating tobacco-related diseases each year. This is critical funding that we need elsewhere. With the passage of the legislation today, we can prevent this. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6193) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and administer policies, procedures, and programs to promote the implementation of the Controlled Unclassified Information Framework applicable to unclassified information that is homeland security information, terrorism information, weapons of mass destruction information and other information within the scope of the information sharing environment established under section 1016 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 485), and for other purposes, as amended.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3815) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to make full and efficient use of open source information to develop and disseminate open source homeland security information products, and for other purposes, as amended.