Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], the cosponsor of this amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], one of the most honorable and impressive Members of this House, and the ranking member of the Committee on National Security.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Brown].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the compliment and thank the gentleman for it. I would just say this: That our committee and its composition are competent to do what you are suggesting. Why do we need to interpose a commission between us and the policymakers and the executive branch? Why do not we do this ourselves?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews], a great deficit hawk. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. My colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] and I are offering an amendment today that every deficit hawk should love. Balanced budget supporters should unite around it because it would strike a section of this bill, title 3, which would establish an Advisory Commission on National Security Revitalization that we simply do not need. Let me make three quick points: First, the commission is a waste of money. Even if we reprogram the money, its timetable is absurdly short, and its $1.5 million estimated budget wastes taxpayer funds that could be better spent on readiness or quality of life for our troops and their families. In comparison to other Government expenditures, $1.5 million is not much. However, the challenge is for all of us in this economic environment to reduce wasteful Government expenditures, not increase them. If we are serious about balancing the budget, this money must not be spent. Second, the commission usurps the responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the congressional defense committees. Defense Secretary Perry emphatically stated that, ``the proposed commission usurps the responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense.'' At the same time this independent commission would interfere with the ability of the Committee on National Security to fulfill its responsibilities. Secretary Perry also correctly advised that we should not dilute the responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense by turning a key part of them over to an independent commission. Third, the commission is redundant. I am holding up a list prepared by supporters of this commission. This 2-page list prepared by supporters of this commission shows 14 other commissions that are already doing work on overlapping subjects. This commission would duplicate tasks of the Rolls Admission Comission, the Quality of Life Task Force, the Reserve Forces Policy Board, the Task Force on Readiness, among others. It is a waste of time and money. To sum up, Mr. Chairman, I agree with the recent comment of a senior member of the other body who said, ``the commission is a real loser.''

Ms. HARMAN. Reclaiming my remaining time, I will just say this, let us balance the budget. Let us vote ``no'' on the Hefley amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the Hefley amendment. First, let me thank my colleague for supporting an amendment I offered in the National Security Committee to strike the entire commission including its funding. I think that is the way to go, and in just a few minutes, my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], and I will offer an amendment again to do that. I think the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] is correct in pointing out the $1.5 million that would be appropriated for this commission should not come from new funds, nor should it come from existing funds. We should not spend it. I am a supporter of the balanced budget amendment, as is he, and it is time to get serious about cutting out unnecessary funding. This is a point I made last night, too, as we made the difficult balance between more funds for national missile defense and readiness. There is no free lunch, Mr. Chairman, and unfortunately this amendment would seem to be asking for one.

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].

Ms. HARMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and hope I can add some clarity to this debate. I think that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has shown great leadership on this subject, and what he offers today is intended to take the inexact language of H.R. 7 and help us go in a much more constructive direction. I am an unabashed supporter of ballistic missile defense which I know is in our national security. In fact, last year I joined with our former colleague, Now Senator Kyl, to add money to the BMD account. We were successful in committee, but lost on the House floor. The Spratt amendment does the sensible thing, particularly because it makes clear that our priority for the short term is theater missile defense and not national missile defense. I would urge that we deploy at the soonest practicable day TMD, not NMD, and I worry that if and when this Contract passes, we will skew our priorities and spend our money on the wrong thing first. Missile proliferation is here. One only has to go to the country of Israel to realize how vulnerable that ally is. A missile launched from Syria can land anywhere on the continental soil of Israel in 1 minute. A missile launched from Iran takes 5 minutes. Our ballistic missile defense capability is not adequate, not adequate. But what we must do first is protect against short- and medium-term launches, and we are proceeding to do that. I also believe I heard my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], say--I hope he said--that space-based interceptors, interceptors, should come later. I am not against space- based interceptors in our future, but I am against them right now as a priority. I believe that that is the intent of the gentleman's amendment, and I will oppose any amendment that would ban space-based interceptors for the future. I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], who is now running his interesting contest here, that the ``S'' word I intend to use here is space-based, and not star wars. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Spratt amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. As the Representative of a district I call the aerospace center of the universe, I have consistently stood for a strong defense policy on a bipartisan basis, and I do so again today. I have supported the C-17; in fact, I coauthored the amendment to fund it fully; the F- 18; the B-2; ballistic missile defense and defense reinvestment programs. But I would make several points about this bill, which, unless it changes substantially, I will end up opposing. First of all, it is to my mind a campaign pamphlet, not a piece of legislation, and I think we must find more serious vehicles to legislate on defense issues. Second and sadly, I think some of its advocates tend to label some of its opponents in wrong ways. I must say I was honored to listen to the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], a few minutes ago in which he said that the labels are misguided. We are not here to attack each other. We are here to address serious policy, and I would reiterate his point, and make it again coming from a very different part of the political spectrum. Finally let me say this: Some serious amendments will be offered during the course of this afternoon, this evening and tomorrow. I will speak for some of them and against some of them. But I urge all of us to approach this, not as part of a political campaign, but as part of our serious responsibilities to govern this country.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I enthusiastically supported the Spratt amendment--to fund and deploy a theater missile defense system first. I also agree with Mr. Spratt that a ground-based system is the place to start. And I agree with the author of this amendment, Mr. Edwards, that a lot of money has been wasted on space-based systems that were poorly designed and extravagantly funded. But I am not prepared to support an amendment that prohibits deployment of space-based interceptors which, using new technology, we may need to defend against future threats. And so, with reluctance, I will cast my vote against the Edwards amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree that we need balance. I am one Member on this side of the aisle who supported the balanced budget amendment, which most of the Members on the gentleman's side did, too. We need to make some tough choices. We cannot have everything. We cannot fully fund every single line item in the defense budget. My choice is for these amendments.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as a previous speaker has said, it is a shame we have to raise the debate on abortion over and over and over again. The gentleman is right. It is a shame, but it is necessary. A constitutional right is not a right if it cannot be exercised. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which I strongly supported, Mr. Chairman, was intended to guarantee the right to choose, but the resources to secure that right are lagging. That is why we need the Schroeder amendment. The Schroeder amendment allows local law enforcement block grant funding to be used to increase security at our country's reproductive health care clinics. The amendment does not stand in the way of flexibility, it simply permits local law enforcement to allocate the necessary resources to stop violence at these clinics. In my congressional district, OB-GYN physicians who perform legal abortions have called on me to help stop the violence. By passing the Schroeder amendment today, we will take a critical step toward protecting these doctors, their families, their patients.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, the choice on fighting crime is clear. We need to send a valentine to our cops by supporting cops on the beat. I have checked with my local officials, and cops come first. I voted for last year's crime bill with full support from local law enforcement. Funding for cops on the beat is working in my district, and we need to keep it working. The Schumer-Conyers-Chapman amendment would also leave intact $2.5 billion in block grants to localities. I am for these block grants because they give the localities flexibility. I am against prescriptive amendments to tell localities how to spend money to fight crime. Last year's crime bill carefully balanced funding for cops, punishment, and prevention. We are too hasty to undo the cops on the beat program. We have made a commitment to local law enforcement. Let us not go back on it now.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the line-item veto. Opponents of the line-item veto say they believe it would take power away from Congress and give it to the President. But I see it as a way of taking power away from pork-barrel programs and giving it to people who want to cut side of Pennsylvania Avenue they work on, and regardless of which party they call home. My only regret about the line-item veto we will pass later today is that it does not allow the President to veto pork in tax incentive programs. There is no difference between a program that appropriates $100 million to directly subsidize a certain activity and a tax incentive that cuts taxes by $100 million for the same activity. Both increase the deficit and neither is available to the average citizen. I urge my colleagues to support the line-item veto. It is a good tool in the hands of both Republican and Democratic Presidents.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 86 on H.R. 2 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' parliamentary inquiry

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, during Rollcall Vote No. 85 on H.R. 2 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no''.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, during Rollcall Vote No. 87 on H.R. 2 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' amendment offered by mr. deal of georgia

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 88 on H.R. 2 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have noted ``no.''