Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the budget resolution conference report. It is not a fiscally responsible plan. It does not spend our surplus wisely nor make any additional reductions in the public debt. Instead, it sets out a course that may well result in huge deficits by the end of the 10-11 year period. When I was first elected to Congress in 1992, the annual federal budget deficit was close to $300 billion. But I joined many of my colleagues in making the hard-fought and difficult deficit cutting votes of the 1990s. I voted for the 1993 budget, Penny-Kasich, constitutional amendments to balance the budget and to limit tax increases. And I voted for the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which finally produced the first federal surpluses in a generation. The budget before us could well restore that $300 billion annual deficit by 2011, undoing everything I fought for. It could return us to raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds--despite this chamber's repeated promise not to do so. And the budget retreats from making needed investments in our citizens. For example, it eliminates 98 percent of the increase proposed in the Senate's budget for special education--a program of critical importance to educators in my district and elsewhere. The budget before us has accounting margins so precarious that any small bump in the economy will result in a deficit. It spends, for example, all but $1 billion of the FY01 $96 billion surplus. That surplus, however, was estimated in January--before the downturn in the economy and the freefall of the stock market. Mr. Speaker, a fiscally responsible budget should meet our nation's investment needs while using the surplus to reduce the public debt and enact responsible and affordable tax cuts. The framework I support-- fashioned by the Blue Dogs--would allocate the surplus 50%--25%--25% across these three budget categories. Most important, the Blue Dog framework earmarks half of the surplus to reducing the debt--the policy most preferred by my constituents and most Americans. The budget before us has none of these characteristics. It is imbalanced in its priorities, and predicated on budget surplus numbers that are ephemeral at best and illusory at worst. My constituents deserve better.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Jack T. Goslin, who will be retiring as the City of Avalon Fire Chief on May 31st. Chief Goslin began his career 43 years ago as a firefighter in the United States Air Force and has served the City of Avalon for over 39\1/2\ years. Significantly, Chief Goslin is the longest serving fire chief in Los Angeles County history. His length of service to Avalon and his love for the seaside town is unmatched. He will be missed but not forgotten by all of those friends and colleagues who will gather on May 15th to wish him the very best for a long, active and healthy retirement. I join the citizens of Avalon in wishing Chief Goslin well. He has served the community with honor and distinction and a tenure that will likely be unsurpassed.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 10, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act of 2001, which will improve the ability of all Americans to save for retirement. Since 1981, the IRA contribution limit has not been adjusted for inflation. This legislation increases the contribution limit over the next 3 years to $5,000. Additionally, those who are over 50 are given the opportunity to ``catch up'' through an increased contribution limit of $5,000 beginning in 2002. This legislation also addresses the needs of the increasingly mobile workforce through provisions which provide quicker vesting for employer matching funds, a simpler pension system to encourage small businesses to provide pension plans and a faster vesting of employer matching contributions. These provisions will allow the younger generation of workers to better plan and adequately prepare for retirement. Mr. Speaker, I was not here the last time this legislation was considered on the House floor, but had I been, this legislation would have had my full support. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 10.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note for the House Chamber, I am here with my daughter-for-the-day, Laura Wasserman, who is sitting next to me, who is taking the place today for my four wanted children. Mr. Speaker, I have borne children. I have also suffered a miscarriage; and I would like to say to the gentleman (Mr. Hyde) who just spoke before me who talked in terms of the Lofgren amendment dehumanizing the child, that the underlying bill dehumanizes the woman bearing the child, and I think that point needs to be noticed. We are talking about unborn children, and I take that very seriously. We are also talking about pregnant women who are bearing those fetuses that are about to become children. Mr. Speaker, I think attention must be paid to the mothers. I rise in support of the amendment offered today by my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), which creates a separate Federal criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman and specifically punishes violence against her resulting in injury to or the termination of a pregnancy. If we are trying to protect pregnant women, let us protect them. Let us not insult the intelligence of women in this country by attacking their rights under the guise of protecting their unborn fetuses. Mr. Speaker, I have read Roe v. Wade. It was a decision of the Supreme Court after I was a practicing lawyer. I knew Harry Blackmun, the late Justice Blackmun, who drafted Roe v. Wade and whose experience in this area came from his being general counsel to the Mayo Clinic. He carefully defined a framework in that decision that includes a definition of viability of the fetus. The underlying bill here would interfere with that definition and undercut Roe v. Wade. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this amendment and rise in opposition to the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Once again, opponents of choice are making an attempt to interfere with a woman's right to choose. Supporters of H.R. 503 claim it increases punishments for individuals who commit violence against pregnant women. They claim it will help protect these women--however, the protection of the pregnant woman is never mentioned in the text of this bill. Instead, the bill defines an unborn fetus as a person against whom a crime can be committed. It creates ``fetal rights.'' Congress should not be involved in defining when life begins nor should it create ``rights'' for which we do not know the full repercussions. I strongly support the alternative offered by my friend and colleague Zoe Lofgren, which creates a separate federal criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman and specifically punishes violence against her resulting in injury or the termination of a pregnancy. If we are trying to protect pregnant women, then let's protect them. Let's not insult the intelligence of women in this country by attacking their rights under the guise of protecting their unborn fetuses. Roe v. Wade establishes a careful framework which includes a definition of viability of the fetus. H.R. 503 is a backdoor attempt to weaken Roe v. Wade and interfere with a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices. Mr. Speaker, let's respect the women of this country. Let's not undermine a woman's Constitutional right to choose. Vote no on H.R. 503! Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bob Pinzler for his outstanding service to the citizens of Redondo Beach, California. As a member of the Redondo Beach City Council for the past eight years, Bob demonstrated a profound commitment to civic service. He is known as a relentless advocate of better city government. He championed more effective use of technology by municipalities. He fought for infrastructure improvements and community development projects whose positive impacts have been felt throughout the City of Redondo Beach and indeed the entire South Bay. Responding to his constituents' concerns about increased noise, pollution and traffic resulting from proposed expansion of Los Angeles International Airport, Bob worked with me and other civic leaders and elected officials on a task force shaping a regional approach to solving Southern California's air transportation needs. Our work continues, but Bob has made an invaluable contribution. I know that we will continue to work together on this issue. In addition to his service on the Redondo Beach City Council, Bob is the current State League Director of the League of California Cities and was President of the League's Los Angeles County Division. He is the past president of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments. He is a member of the Regional Council of the Southern California Association of Governments and was vice-chair of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project. Bob is a friend and an ally. I extend my very best wishes to him and his wife Arlene as they move into an exciting new chapter of their lives. It has always been a privilege to work with Bob and I invite my colleagues to join me in commending his exemplary public service.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am voting for two bills to revise the estate tax. Neither is a perfect answer, and my votes signify my eagerness to work with both parties to craft a bipartisan solution. I support tax relief in the context of a responsible budget that ``spends'' our surplus wisely. Estate tax relief should be part of this budget. The present estate tax system hurts small businesses and hard-working families in the South Bay and elsewhere and it needs to change. We need immediate relief--not the promise of relief in 11 years, which is the essence of H.R. 8. We need a higher exemption--up to $4 million--which is the subject of a bipartisan letter I signed to President Bush. We should also consider the notion in H.R. 8 to subject appreciated property to capital gains tax--but we should do it in a way that does not impose new burdens on those presently exempt from estate tax. This is a work in progress. I reserve judgment on the final product. Today, my votes signify my willingness to engage the conversation.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, a man with an even bigger heart retired March 31 as chief of police for the city of Hermosa Beach. Chief Val Strasser served the community tirelessly. Joining the Hermosa Beach police force on September 16, 1973, he was promoted through the ranks until he was appointed chief in July 1993. During the course of his career, he made many friends and I am proud to be counted among them. Chief Strasser was the epitome of community policing. He is remembered for fostering close ties between the department and the community. He understood that for law enforcement to be successful, it has to enlist all citizens and recruit them to be vigilant. Chief Strasser had an open-door policy and encouraged citizens to drop in without an appointment to share their concerns, offer advice, or just plain complain. He always received them warmly and always tried to be responsive. Along the way, he made many, many friends and admirers. Mr. Speaker, the city of Hermosa Beach is known for its surf, sand, and sea. Because of the leadership of Chief Strasser and the dedication of his officers and civilian personnel, Hermosa Beach is also a safe city where residents and visitors can enjoy its small town quaintness as well as its diverse cultural and recreational opportunities. Val Strasser will be remembered fondly by residents and this Member of Congress. I join in wishing the best to Chief Strasser and his wife, Becky, as they look forward to their retirement years together.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I say to the last speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my friend, that if he wants to fund defense plus-ups, as I do, he has a better chance of doing that if we enact the Blue Dog budget. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Blue Dog budget and urge bipartisan support for the most fiscally responsible plan we will consider in this House. Many of us are veterans of the hard budget votes of the early and mid-1990s, votes like the 1993 Clinton budget, Penny-Kasich, a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, a constitutional amendment for limiting tax increases, and the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. These hard votes helped produce the first budget surpluses in a generation and restored economic vitality to our Nation. Let us not squander our good fortunes. The Blue Dog budget is a responsible and balanced plan. It pays down the national debt, the best tax cut for all Americans. It protects Social Security and Medicare by enacting a strong lock box, and providing a cushion to ensure that missed estimates of the strength of the economy, projected surpluses, or the cost of tax cuts do not result in renewed deficit spending or borrowing from the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. The Blue Dog budget maps out a higher level of defense spending. It funds improvements in education and respects the sacrifice of our veterans, and it funds plus-ups in agriculture, a key component of California's economy. Unlike the GOP budget, the Blue Dog budget proposes a responsible approach to cutting taxes. It shapes what tax cuts we can afford, not the other way around. I enthusiastically support the Blue Dog budget. It is responsible, fair, balanced, and honest. It is a framework for policy choices which will sustain our nation's economic prosperity.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, during Women's History Month, I would like to highlight one of the cruelest and most widespread forms of violence: violence against women. In 1999, there were over 59,000 domestic violence calls for assistance in Los Angeles County--755 in my district alone. And those are just the women who call. I am taking this opportunity to mention two shelters located in my district. Rainbow Services, a shelter in San Pedro, California, was the first shelter to establish an emergency response program in Los Angeles County for battered women and children. Rainbow Services provides resources and guidance that help battered women end abuse. Women at the shelter are given help obtaining a restraining order and there is a large network of almost 20 weekly peer support groups. As important, all services are offered in Spanish, allowing access for more women to seek help. A second shelter, the 1736 Family Crisis Center in Hermosa Beach, also offers unique and important help. The Center aids women and children who need to use emergency services by allowing them to stay one month with confidential shelter. Second Step Shelters also provide transitional abuse counseling and offer independent living skills training, which allows women to become self-sufficient after their time at the shelter. Mr. Speaker, violence against women is still an epidemic in this country. It is my hope this important issue continues to receive government attention. Shelters, like those in my district, must receive the necessary resources so all women in need have access to a safe and confidential home. We cannot ignore this issue, or sweep it under the rug. Only constant vigilance and providing women with tools and knowledge will be successful in ending the cycle of domestic violence.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, in honor of International Women's Day, I would like to highlight an event occurring in California's 36th District in April. To recognize women throughout my district, the Women's Coalition South Bay is sponsoring the South Bay Women's Summit. This Summit will give us the opportunity to discuss issues important to women around the world, such as workplace and pay equity and improved childcare. Mr. Speaker, another critical issue that will be discussed is reproductive choice. I respect every woman's personal decision on choice, and feel strongly that Congress should not dictate to women how that choice should be exercised. This right is coming under attack around the world, and here in the United States. The South Bay Women's Summit will give women the chance to talk about ways we can protect this right, including ensuring access to Mifepristone and allowing U.S. funding of overseas family planning clinics. The women of the South Bay provide networking opportunities, a shoulder to lean on, and the chance to relax with good friends. I am proud to be participating in the South Bay Women's Summit, which will illuminate issues that deserve our attention, and provide a framework for future action.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, here are some unemployment statistics from cities in my district: Redondo Beach, 2.7 percent; Manhattan Beach, 1.9 percent; Los Angeles, 5.4 percent, and Torrance, 3.1 percent. Pretty good, huh? How did we get here? Part of it is the ingenuity of the private sector. The other part is the successful Federal efforts to balance the budget in a balanced way. I am a veteran of the budget wars. I voted for the 1993 Budget Act, Penny-Kasich, to cut $90 billion in spending, the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment, the 1997 Budget Act. Though my family and I would benefit from the bill before us, now is not the time. I join the Blue Dogs in insisting on a budget first. I want unemployment to stay low. That will only happen if we do not pass a tax cut until we know we can afford it.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, during previous Congresses, I made many tough votes to balance our Federal budget with balanced priorities: I voted for the 1993 Clinton budget; I voted for Penny-Kasich, the first bipartisan effort to cut spending significantly; I voted for a constitutional amendment to balance our budget; and I voted for the 1997 balanced budget. For my efforts, I received the Concord Coalition Deficit Hawk Award and four very close election victories. I have paid my dues on this issue, and I believe my votes have benefited all our constituents. I rise today because tomorrow's vote on the first installment of a deficit-busting tax cut is wrong. It would benefit my family and me, but it is wrong. We need a budget first to make certain we pass tax cuts we can afford. We need a budget first to make certain we will pay off our debts in this decade, the best tax cut for all Americans.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, my first job offer on the Hill came from the late California Senator, Alan Cranston, who will be remembered at a memorial service this afternoon by generations of colleagues and staffers. Though I never worked on Alan's staff, I relied on him for counsel and support for 3 decades. Alan was a mentor to me when I served in senior staff positions for Senator John Tunney. I always had the sense that Alan was looking out for John and me, and for California's interests. We remained friends through the years and saw each other last at Stanford University only a few months ago. Alan's counsel and continued focus on issues he cared passionately about, especially world peace, set the marker. He was always working. No doubt he was working until the moment he left us. I was fortunate to know and learn from him. We were fortunate to have him as a congressional leader for 24 years.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that my final hours in the House are not among its finest hours. My dream of public service began in 1960, when, as a high school student, I witnessed the nomination of John F. kennedy for President of the United States. Congress is the only public office I have ever held. My record reflects many attempts to generate and embrace bipartisan solutions. My bipartisan district has applauded these efforts like last year's balanced budget agreement. But it also shares my dismay at the tenure of our floor debate last week on whether to begin an inquiry of impeachment of the President. The floor debate had more the feeling of a rally than a sober exercise of one of Congress's most awesome responsibilities under the Constitution. Indeed, it seemed to me that many Members in the Chamber were gleeful and that the exercise was payback for some earlier slight, whether from the President or someone else. Mr. Speaker, thousands of my constituents have contacted me in the past 2 months and by a recent count of 9 to 1 have made clear they find the President's conduct wrong, as I do, but they do not want him impeached. Mr. Speaker, I have said in other forums that not only is the President on trial, so is Congress. Unless we show the Nation we can trust and respect each other, the Nation will not trust and respect the result of our inquiry. I regret that my final hours in the House are not among its finest hours. My dream of public service began in 1960 when, as a high school usher, I witnessed the nomination of John F. Kennedy for president of the United States. Congress is the only public office I've ever held, and my record reflects many attempts to generate and embrace bipartisan solutions. My bipartisan district has applauded those efforts, like last year's balanced budget agreement. But, it also shares my dismay at the tenor of our floor debate last week on whether to begin an inquiry of impeachment of the President. The floor debate had more of the feeling of a rally than the sober exercise of one of Congress' most awesome responsibilities under the Constitution. Indeed, it seemed to me that many members in the chamber were gleeful, and that the exercise was pay-back for some earlier slight, whether from the President or someone else. Mr. Speaker, thousands of my constituents have contacted me in the past two months, and by a recent margin of nine to one have made clear that they find the President's conduct wrong, as do I, but they do not want him impeached. Many favor alternative remedies: censure, rebuke or criminal or civil prosecution. All feel that a prolonged inquiry risks distracting the nation at a time of serious economic and international instability. But, as so often happens in the House, we were confronted with imperfect legislative choices. With reservations, I cast my vote for an inquiry of impeachment limited in time and scope so that Congress can fulfill its obligations under the Independent Counsel law and the Constitution, consider alternative sanctions, and conclude its review by year's end. This, I believe, was the more appropriate course for the House to take than an open-ended, wide-ranging inquiry as proposed by the Judiciary Committee majority. Regrettably, the vote was essentially partisan, and the atmosphere dramatically different from Congress' 1974 impeachment inquiry concerning President Nixon. At the time, I served as chief counsel of a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, and vividly recall a process which, at an early stage, generated widespread acceptance and an orderly transition of power. It saddens me greatly that I end my service in Congress as a participant in a process that hurts this institution, the office of the presidency and, most important, the American people. I've said in other forums that not only is the President on trial--so is Congress. Unless we show the nation we can trust and respect each other, the nation will not trust and respect the result of our inquiry. Mr. Speaker, nearly six years ago, I stood in this well with other members of the newly-elected 103rd Congress to take the oath of office from Speaker Tom Foley. As all who have shared that exhilarating experience, it opened an important and wonderful chapter in my life--a chapter which I will soon bring to a close. January 1993, opened auspiciously for the nation. A new Congress and new President had been elected and a new approach to governing--to addressing important economic and fiscal issues--was blossoming. History, of course, will evaluate whether we have acquitted ourselves well in the six years since. To be sure, Congress and the President made significant gains in some policy areas, particularly in working to achieve the first balanced budget in a generation. In other critical policy areas, nothing was done. And, regrettably, in some areas, efforts to roll back significant gains, particularly for women, have gathered momentum. Having campaigned on a platform of ``prochoice, pro change,'' I came to the nation's capital with strong views, experience in both the public and private sectors, and a determination to ``represent'' the needs of my newly-created defense-dependent district. During my campaign I said I would seek a seat on the House Armed Services Committee, a request for which I received the strong support of my dear friend Les Aspin, the Committee's then-chairman and soon-to-be Secretary of Defense. Later, with the help of Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt, I was able to realize another goal: to serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, a committee, again, with relevance to my district's interests. I call California's 36th District the ``aerospace capital of the world.'' In 1993, it was suffering from deep cuts in defense spending as a result of the end of the cold war. Unemployment was in double digits, particularly among skilled professionals, as defense firms cut back jobs and programs. The patriots who won the cold war were themselves out in the cold. Helping to rebuild the local and regional economy was the greatest challenge I faced as the new representative. Given the staggering size of the federal deficit and urgent calls for spending on education, technology, health care and the environment, it was clear that we would not restore defense spending to the levels experienced during the height of the cold war. Instead, we needed a two-prong strategy: first, to support core research and development and procurement priorities that would win the next war, and second, to help aerospace companies diversify into growing commercial sectors like advanced transportation, communications, green technologies, and medical research. Many of the cutting-edge technologies were then, as now, developed in the 36th District. And, key to retaining this activity was our successful effort to keep the Los Angeles Air Force Base and its Space and Missile Systems Center headquartered in the South Bay. SMC spends over $5 billion a year to play and procure space systems for the Air Force and coordinates much of the defense R&D done by local firms. In addition, I am proud to have been an advocate of weapons programs that meet our nation's future defense requirements--programs like the C-17 heavy airlift cargo plane, the B-2 stealth bomber, the FA-18 E/F, the MILSTAR satellite, and others which enhanced our armed forces' warfighting capability. We also recognized that diversification of the industrial base was essential to coping with the vicissitudes of the budget cycles, and assuring that human and plant resources would be there should we need to convert to defense use again. The recent economic turnabout suggests we made the right decisions. We helped commercialize defense technologies through programs like the Technology Reinvestment Program--TRP. In fact, the first TRP grant was awarded to a Torrance firm named Hi-Shear Technology, which used rocket technology to power a miniaturized ``jaws of life.'' That product would later be used to rescue individuals trapped in the debris of the Oklahoma City federal building bombing. Developing such ``dual use'' technologies not only revolutionized the local economy, but also brought to the marketplace advances that have benefitted the nation as a whole. Direct satellite television, for example, was spawned by defense contractors like Hughes, one of my corporate constituents in El Segundo. Another constituent, Allied Signal, has utilized defense technologies to develop and manufacture ultra-low emission, low-cost electrical generators. Northrop Grumman has developed the lightweight, fuel efficient Advanced Technology Transit Bus (ATTB). And, of course, the Western Regional Law Enforcement and Technology Center, sited at my request in El Segundo, identifies technologies that can be, and have been, applied by law enforcement agencies nationwide to solving crimes. Technological advances associated with defense satellites have also found commercial applications. TRW has designed and launched a number of NASA satellites that have helped map our globe, discover valuable resources, anticipate climatic changes, identify weather patterns, and improve our communication capabilities worldwide. Commercialization was augmented by policies that capitalized on the South Bay's position as a gateway to the economies of the Pacific Rim and Southern Hemisphere. Trade is responsible for an estimated 6.3% of the LA basin's economy, compared to half that level in 1980. And, according to a recent study by the US Department of Commerce, the region experienced a 22.1% growth in exports between 1993 and 1996. In 1996 alone, the LA-Long Beach metropolitan region exported $24.4 billion in merchandise. Exports to Canada grew by 39% and to Mexico by 36%. In the 36th Congressional District, the percentage of annual trade- related growth is high and many thousands of jobs--including thousands of union jobs--are associated with both the manufacturing of goods for export and the movement of goods through the Port of LA, Los Angeles International Airport and the nearby Port of Long Beach. The prospect for increased growth with our Asian trading partners remain positive and South and Central America are expected to become an increasingly important part of the burgeoning world trade picture. Los Angeles is making significant capital investments in its port infrastructure, including the Alameda Corridor, in order to meet future demand growth--investments I helped secure in partnership with local, state and the federal governments. Given the importance of trade to the local South Bay and LA economies, it was only natural for my constituents to expect a strong advocate in Washington. I have tried to be that advocate. I voted for GATT, voted twice to continue most-favored-nation trade status for the People's Republic of China, and voted for innumerable trade and tax law changes and other policies that enhance our competitive position in the world. More recently, over the understandable concerns of some of my constituents, I voted for the measure granting the President fast track consideration of trade agreements he negotiates with our foreign trading partners. Unemployment in the South Bay is now 5.3 percent and declining. The number of jobs is expected to continue to grow, showing a 17% increase between 1993, when the worst of the aerospace industry's downsizing hit the area, and 2005. Thus, I am most proud of my role in helping diversify and commercialize defense technologies, which has offset the loss of jobs in the defense sector. My memberships on the House National Security Committee and the Select Permanent Committee on Intelligence also afforded me opportunities to shape defense policies in anticipation of our nation's security requirements for the 21st century. My focus on defense reform initiatives and the revolution in military affairs has been both interesting intellectually and challenging to implement. I believe more focus is needed on the long-term consequences of some of the policy and budget proposals considered by Congress. The two-year election cycle in the House and the annual appropriations cycle discourage forward thinking, with serious downside consequences. I believe the urge among some of my House colleagues to re-segregate by gender basic training in the military is particularly short-sighted, as it is unwarranted. Not only do such proposals victimize women and us an opportunity to use our full potential to serve our country in the Armed Forces, they also jeopardize military readiness by micromanaging decision about training which should properly be made by the military services. In my view, what is driving the debate in Congress is not an appreciation for future readiness needs, but an outdated paternalism. In fact, one of the disappointments during my tenure in Congress has been the increasingly successful efforts to roll back Constitutionally- protected rights, particularly reproductive rights. Nineteen-ninety-three has been dubbed the ``year of the woman'' following the 1992 elections, and the 103rd Congress passed a number of significant measures affecting women and families. The first bill signed into law by President Clinton was the Family and Medical Leave Act. I cosponsored it, voted for it, and was thrilled to be part of that landmark event. We also reversed a number of bans on funding for abortions, particularly for indigent women who previously had been denied their Constitutional right to choose because of their inability to pay. The 104th and 105th Congresses have, in contrast, been the most anti- choice Congresses since the Supreme Court's 1972 Roe versus Wade decision. In the last four years, Congress has taken 98 votes on choice-related issues. Abortion opponents have won 82 of them--84 percent. Hopefully, the trend will soon be reversed. The other major disappointment during my tenure has been the deteriorating tone of debate in the House and the increased partisanship that characterizes consideration of nearly every issue. Last year's balanced budget bill was an exception--but an increasingly rare exception. Our last major debate on one of the House's few enumerated responsibilities under the Constitution--initiating an impeachment inquiry of the president--was particularly saddening. Sitting on the House floor for the entire proceeding, the sense of gleefulness I sensed from some of my colleagues was particuarly misplaced. I fear that Congress' ability to address the major issues of the nation is in serious decline. Rather than seeking accommodation between legitimate yet differing views and ideologies, some in this institution--still a minority--have sought to drive even greater wedges between people--wedges to the detriment of the nation and this institution. Partisanship has replaced policy as the focus of attention. In combination with this Congress' failure to fix a broken campaign finance system, good and decent people will be discouraged from running for office, especially if future Congress' are believed to be as unproductive as this one. Lack of program also wastes the dedication and hard work of so many Members and staff who currently serve. Indeed, the House is an institution that works best because of the personal relationship it is built on. And, I have been blessed because of the many friends I have made here--friends from both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, my favorite rhetorical question is to ask why a middle- aged mother of four would run for Congress. My answer: to add something. During my six years, I believe I have added something. To be sure, I would have liked to accomplish more and to have generated more bipartisanship. I often say that life has many chapters and, as one closes, another opens--sometimes unexpectedly, even serendipitously. I want to thank all my colleagues who have made my tenure here exciting and rewarding. From the two speakers under whom I've served, Tom Foley and Newt Gingrich, to my many colleagues past and present on the committees on which I've served, to those I have met through the variety of ad hoc caucuses and coalitions that arise during the course of governing--thank you all. To my superb staff, you demonstrate everyday what public service is all about. To my family and especially my husband, Sidney, you are, in every way, the wind beneath my wings. Serving here has been a labor of love. And I thank the citizens of California's 36th Congressional District for the extraordinary opportunity to represent you.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join the family and friends of Robert E. (Bob) Chase and commend him on his retirement at the end of this month as Assistant City Administrative Officer for the City of Los Angeles. Bob, is retiring after 41 years of distinguished service during which he served the citizens of Los Angeles and four mayors--Norris Poulson, Sam Yorty, Tom Bradley and Richard Riordan. Soon after he first joined the city in 1957, Bob rapidly rose in the city administrative office, being named to the position of assistant city administrative officer and executive officer in 1971 in recognition of his management skills. These same skills earned him recognition within the Metropolitan Chapter of the American society for Public Administration, which elected him president in 1975. Bob's record tenure as Executive Officer of the city administrative office has been a source of stability and reassurance to the city's residents. Indeed, the office has been at the center of all of the major events and changes which have shaped the city of Los Angeles. Most importantly, the administrative office enjoys a nationally- recognized reputation overseeing the fiscal affairs of the nation's second largest city--due, undoubtedly, to Bob's talents and those of the fine staff he assembled. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that Bob Chase is a constituent. He is an example of the high quality of public servants who serve the city and one of many who devote considerable time and effort to build a strong and stable community. I know bob is looking forward to spending more time with his wife, Sallie, and their family. from time to time, I understand he will also hone his already formidable skills at golf. In all these future ventures, I wish him the very best and, again, join in thanking him for his service to the residents of the City of Los Angeles.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for yielding me this time, and for 26 years of friendship so far. I thank our other colleagues for their very kind remarks about me and my service on the committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3694, the bill authorizing intelligence spending for fiscal year 1999. As we have heard, this is my last intelligence authorization. Before commenting on the bill, I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) for generating an unusually collaborative and bipartisan environment in which talented colleagues and a superb staff can work productively. It was a special goal of mine to serve on this committee and I have loved it. As I have often said, intelligence spending is intelligent spending, perhaps now more than ever. The U.S. no longer confronts a single, well-known adversary, but a fluid international environment where weapons of mass destruction can be had on the international market for a price; where crime syndicates organize across national borders; where terrorists, as we sadly experienced this summer, can strike with deadly force. Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that we be able to anticipate and meet these new challenges. Despite our efforts to strengthen the nonproliferation regime, the demand for weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery has not waned, and neither has the supply. This past year, after information indicated an increase in the in- flow of missile technology and know-how to Iran, Congress directed the administration to impose sanctions on entities involved in these transfers. Congress' action will help curb efforts by Iran to accelerate its missile programs and impede its capability to field missiles that can strike Israel, our NATO ally Turkey, and targets in Central Europe; missiles which could be armed with chemical, biological and nuclear warheads. We have also seen alarming developments elsewhere in Asia. Recently, North Korea tested its first Taepo Dong 1 missile. We anticipated the launch, monitored it, and now know more about this missile's performance than the North Koreans. This new missile does not yet allow North Korea to deliver a weapon to the United States, or reach significant military targets it could not strike already, but it puts it on that path. The launch also advertised North Korea's capabilities to would-be buyers, a very disturbing development. Mr. Speaker, these are just two examples of proliferation in already unstable regions of the world. Intelligence resources will be crucial not only in monitoring these developing weapon capabilities but also in shaping policies to stem attempts to proliferate this technology. Intelligence is also increasingly essential for success on the future battlefield. As a member of both the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on National Security, I have witnessed the incredible advantages that information technology provides to our military forces. I have strongly supported improvements to our eyes and ears in the sky so that commanders will have a complete understanding of the battlefield, and the enemy's locations and intentions. Combined with advances in precision weapon systems, we have vastly improved the capabilities of our Nation's armed forces. I am aware that some of our colleagues would prefer to reduce the priority of satellite reconnaissance and its support to military operations. My view, however, is that there is no more important mission for our intelligence community than supporting our combatant commanders. Our intelligence capabilities are the crux of our defense modernization efforts, and we cannot shortchange intelligence without significantly weakening our military. Mr. Speaker, accurate and timely intelligence makes our Nation safer and armed forces more effective. It is an investment we must protect and nurture. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and, on a personal note, Mr. Speaker, to join me in sending bipartisan and heartfelt get well wishes to Mariel Goss, a very important asset to our committee.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I take a back seat to no one on the need to balance the budget and to do so in a balanced way. I made the tough votes for the Clinton budget in 1993, for the Penny- Kasich spending reduction package, for a deficit reduction lock box, and for other responsible procedural and substantive budget reforms that resulted in today's first-in-a-generation budget surplus. Moreover, with the support of the Blue Dogs, I led the effort to embrace the Boskin Commission recommendations to adjust the Consumer Price Index to more accurately reflect inflation--a move that would have assumed the removal of the Social Security Trust Fund from the budget calculations in 10 years and, as importantly, ensured the solvency of the Trust Fund for another two decades. But, balancing the budget and protecting Social Security are not just accounting exercises. Both are priorities, neither exclusive of the other. They require balanced choices about what to cut and what to invest. Tax reductions are also investments, depending on their cost and targeting. I am voting for today's tax cut bill because I believe its cost is reasonable and its impact appropriately targeted to benefit my constituents. The bill's investments in health care, school construction, affordable housing, and my State's farming families, and the elimination of the harshness of the marriage penalty on middle income Americans are important and will create jobs that generate revenue, including revenue into the Social Security Trust Fund. I am one hundred percent in favor of saving Social Security, and my votes over three Congresses demonstrate this. And, while I will vote for the alternative before the House offered by my friend from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, in fact it does little to advance the cause for saving Social Security. It leaves the difficult fashioning of a rescue plan to future Congresses and, knowing the politics such an effort entails, conditions much-needed tax relief on contingencies which may never come about. A better plan would have included the proposal put forward last year by the Blue Dogs. In our budget plan, tax cuts were conditioned on future surpluses calculated without counting Social Security Trust Fund. Today, however, we are presented with a different set of imperfect choices and I won't blindly support any tax cut, just as I won't support just any plan that purports to ``save'' Social Security. In both cases, I will only support proposals reflecting careful choices and balanced priorities within the context of a balanced budget. The modest tax relief bill before us is such a bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the pending measure granting the President fast track consideration of trade agreements he negotiates with our foreign trading partners. As many of my colleagues know, despite pressure from the Administration, former President Carter, and many of my business constituents, I voted against NAFTA. But fast track is not NAFTA. But fast track is not NAFTA. Indeed, as I explained to a business audience in my district last fall, fast track is not a debate over NAFTA or whether what is negotiated will even resemble NAFTA. I can appreciate the concern that the fast track process may result in a trade agreement certain interests can't support and perhaps can't defeat. But I am more concerned that the lack of fast track authority will mean that even good trade agreements cannot be negotiated because our trading partners will not want Congress to amend them. I represent California's 36th Congressional District--which I call the aerospace center of the universe. Over the course of the last decade, the district has seen thousands of defense-dependent jobs disappear. But the local economy has rebounded--rebounded by diversifying and applying the high technology skills of South Bay workers to solving transportation problems, to cleaning up the environment, to developing advanced communications satellites and the infrastructure and software to support them, and to making advances in medical technologies adapted from Cold War programs. Future growth, indeed the continued existence of these industries, depends on finding foreign markets. Diversification and access to foreign markets are the strategy for saving the defense industrial base that won the Cold War. Without trade, this industrial base would be far weaker today, and fewer high skilled workers would be employed. Most important, our ability to ramp up in times when our nation's security is threatened would be gravely jeopardized. Trade benefits the non-defense sectors in my district as well: from toys to wet suits to automobiles. Most of our growth in manufacturing and service jobs in the last decade is trade-related. Mr. Speaker, creating trade opportunities is an integral part of keeping a strong defense production base at home and for keeping a strong local economy vibrant. Fast track is an essential tool in this effort. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, representing the other tough-to-hold seat in California, I know how hard the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) has worked for his constituents. I know his courage in fighting for responsible gun control; a woman's right to choose; equal treatment for all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation; and responsible campaign finance reform. And I know his incredible personal courage in returning here after the untimely death 2 years ago of his daughter, Anne. Losing an election, which Vic never did, is hard. Losing a child is infinitely harder. Yet Vic and Judy have rebounded, and I think the perfect tribute this institution could pay to him after 20 years is to behave in a sober, bipartisan and fair fashion as we consider the very difficult matter of the President which is before us. I am pleased to join my colleagues in commending Vic for his distinguished public career and proud to call him a friend. Vic, best wishes to you, Judy and your family.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his generous words. He knows that this is my last defense authorization bill. I have served on the committee for three terms, 6 years, first under the distinguished chairmanship of Ron Dellums and now under the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), THE ranking member. I also want to acknowledge that our former chairman, the late Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, was a mentor of mine, and he is on my mind today, too. Mr. Speaker, during the past three Congresses, the committee has strengthened our Nation's defense capabilities, but naturally I always hoped we could do more. I have always believed we need to modernize our military by focusing on tomorrow's battles, not yesterday's. As such, I strongly believe Congress can do more to embrace the revolution in military affairs. Similarly, we need to modernize our forces and continue development of advanced precision strike capabilities, like the B-2 Stealth bomber, and heavy lift capability, like the Air Force's C-17. In fact, I have always called the C-17 my fifth child. The committee has started to address the imbalance in the tooth-to- tail ratio, and I commend it for that. In our defense downsizing, we have cut too much of our combat ability, the tooth, and left a disproportionate amount of our support structure, the tail. As a representative of the district I call the aerospace center of the universe, I know what those cuts mean in human terms and in national security terms. Mr. Speaker, we also must move to assure safety and opportunity to women without whom we could not field an all-volunteer force. I am pleased that this bill does not resegregate basic training by gender, a move backwards, in my view. Mr. Speaker, though I will not be in Congress, I plan to continue to help shape our Nation's defense policies. My service to the women and men who build our defense assets and put their lives on the line for our country will not end with Congress's adjournment. To my friends on the committee, to my friends who have been on the committee, it has been an honor to work with them.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for a decade of resolute effort to preserve, restore, and protect acres of undeveloped land on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in California's 36th Congressional District. As a result of their efforts, the Conservancy has successfully preserved for future generations nearly 260 acres of narrow, lush canyon and sweeping ocean vistas that comprise the Peninsula landscape. These acres, acquired through gifts, purchases and voluntary easements, are now protected and will remain forever available for enjoyment and inspiration. Residents and guests alike will continue to live side-by- side with some of the most scenic natural beauty found anywhere in Los Angeles County, if not our State. As important to preservation, the Conservancy also maintains a commitment to restoring natural habitat and sustaining native wildlife. Their programs include organizing volunteers to clear out non-native plants, gathering seeds to nurture and then returning the seedlings to the land. And, in cooperation with the school district, all third grade students study the geology and natural habitat of the Peninsula, then walk to a site near their school to see, first hand, the plants, animals and rocks they studied. For the other residents, the Conservancy provides monthly docent-guided nature walks to explore more intimately the habitats with which they co-exist. Looking toward the future, the Conservancy has targeted an additional 1,000 acres for preservation and conservation. In addition, with the help of an investment banking company, work will continue to develop innovative conservation finance tools to help resolve inevitable natural resource--land use conflicts. This conservation finance approach promises to become a major factor in land conservation efforts nationwide. The success of the Conservancy rests on a foundation of visionary, dedicated volunteers from the local community. But I also commend the participation of local city, county, state and federal governments officials; the donors of land, time and talent; local publications, and civic groups and private foundations. Their efforts have magnified the success of the Conservancy. Over the past ten years, sizable patches of open space has been saved to ensure the survival of plants and wildlife and, equally important, enhance the quality of life for the people of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. As the Congressional representative of the Peninsula, and resident, I salute the Conservancy's achievements and join with them in working to secure success which future generations will enjoy.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, parents across America are rightly concerned about the continued viability of our system of public elementary and secondary education. Public schools are great equalizers, the entities we've created to help socialize all children and give them the skills necessary to take advantage of the social and economic opportunities our country affords them. When schools fail to do their job, it's our children who suffer. To fix them we certainly need more resources, particularly textbooks, for children and teachers. But we also need standards and merit pay for teachers, the end of social promotion, the setting of goals for children, and most importantly, holding parents, teachers and administrators accountable for the performance of our school system. And until we begin looking seriously at these and other reforms, proposals like vouchers will continue to look attractive though, in my view, they are panaceas, if not anathema to public education itself. While each of us who have had children in public schools can measure success in our children's development, one category of children who have been particularly hurt are those for whom English is not a primary language--children from non-English speaking families or who otherwise have limited English proficiency. As I traveled across the State of California earlier this year, many parents told me of their dissatisfaction with California's bilingual education system. Indeed, the debate and vote for our state's Proposition 227, which required school districts to use immersion as the means of teaching English, demonstrated that many non-English speaking parents wanted change. But, Mr. Chairman, I did not support Proposition 227 because it represented a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to a complex problem--and as such it took away control over the education of our kids from our local school districts, where it belongs. Similarly, I must oppose the English Language Fluency Act. While I believe this legislation is well intentioned, it will have the same unfortunate result across the country as Proposition 227 did in California: it will restrict the flexibility of our local districts to impart the best education possible on all our kids--the education that will prepare them to perform and succeed in our economy. Mainstreaming kids is the right goal, but the means should be left to the level of government with primary responsibility for education: local government. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) to strike the text of H.R. 3396 from the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. I do not doubt the proponents' intent to ensure that federal prosecutors are held to the highest standards of professional conduct. Indeed, as an attorney myself and member of several bars, I fully appreciate the importance of ``bright line'' rules governing ethical behavior, as well as the difficulty in applying them to the complex realities of practicing law. But the bill presumes that federal prosecutors are not subject to stringent rules of conduct. In fact, they are. They are subject to disciplinary investigations and actions brought by the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Department's Inspector General and the Office of Public Integrity. In addition, it is the Department's policy that its attorneys comply with the ethical requirements of the state in which they are licensed and where they practice, unless those requirements are in conflict with federal duties and responsibilities. But, most importantly, in appropriate cases, the matter is referred to the state bar disciplinary authorities for further action. If there is a problem with prosecutorial misconduct, it should certainly be addressed. But is it better to address it by requiring federal prosecutors adhere to a single, high standard of conduct, or to 50 different sets of ethics rules? Indeed, some of the state rules may be contrary to the obligations and responsibilities we may require of federal prosecutors. And, as importantly, a federal system requires an even-handed application of justice--an application that, in my mind, is more difficult if appropriate investigative techniques and prosecutorial actions are called into question under one state's set of rules but permitted by another. More troubling, however, is the fact that the provisions have serious, and perhaps unintended, consequences which could cripple federal enforcement of our laws. In particular, the bill would permit defendants and their lawyers to disrupt ongoing investigations of illegal activity by raising claims of misconduct which, under the bill, would require immediate investigation by the Attorney General. Nora M. Manella, the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, which includes my district, wrote me to say that such allegations threatened the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information and could jeopardize the safety of witnesses and the integrity of investigations. The bill's ``misconduct review board'' would be given authority to inject itself into ongoing criminal investigations, demanding confidential and privileged material, and interfering with a cabinet officer's management of the internal affairs of a department. As a result, Manella writes, ``in all but the simplest of cases, prosecutors will face the risk of triggering at least some of the bill's provisions. Far from protecting the public from misguided Department employees, the proposed bill would inhibit vigorous investigation and prosecution of criminals, thus crippling the ability of federal prosecutors to enforce the very laws Congress has enacted. ``Enacting a bill which virtually invites frivolous complaints designed to obstruct and impede legitimate law enforcement investigations will do nothing to ensure professional conduct of Department employees, but will, instead, discourage lawyers from carrying out their lawful duties.'' The bill's provision may also lead to an exodus of experienced and qualified federal attorneys. According to Manella, senior managers in her office have expressed the view that they would be reluctant to continue their federal service if the provision was enacted. If this were to happen, our federal criminal justice system would be weakened, perhaps permanently, and the vigorous enforcement of our laws both Congress and the people expect will be reduced. Mr. Chairman, we have to remember that our legal system is dependent on both the law enforcement officers who make arrests, and the federal prosecutors who try the cases. Let's not hamstring our fight against crime by imposing an unnecessary set of rules on prosecutors or unintentionally giving criminals a tool with which to stall investigations. This provision and its full implications have not been fully examined and, in my view, it behooves this chamber to approve the amendment to strike it until that examination has taken place. I urge my colleagues to support the Hutchinson amendment, and insert the full text of U.S. Attorney Manella's letter in the Record at this point. U.S. Department of Justice, Nora M. Manella, U.S. Attorney, Central District of California. Hon. Jane L. Harman, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 24, 1998. Re: H.R. 3396: Citizens Protection Act of 1998 Dear Congresswoman Harman: As United States Attorney for the largest district in the country, encompassing 40,000 square miles with a population of 16 million, I write to urge your opposition to H.R. 3396, the ``Citizens Protection Act of 1998.'' I understand H.R. 3396 has been attached to the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill, with a proviso that it be voted upon separately. As you may know, H.R. 3396 is strongly opposed by the Department of Justice and by the 94 United States Attorneys nationwide whose responsibility it is to enforce federal law. It is also opposed by the National District Attorneys Association, which has written separately to voice its objections. A copy of that letter is enclosed. There is no dispute that employees of the Department of Justice should be held to the highest standards of professional conduct. Indeed, the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General's Office already have broad authority to investigate allegations of professional misconduct and to take appropriate action. In addition, the Department's Public Integrity Section can and does investigate potentially criminal conduct. Thus, there is no need for additional legislation. More troubling, however, are the unintended consequences of H.R. 3396. It would, inter alia, subject Department of Justice attorneys to multiple and conflicting rules of 50 different state bar associations. (Had the Oklahoma City bombing team been subject to the provisions of this bill, the results could have been a virtual nightmare.) In addition, the bill would permit defendants and their lawyers to disrupt ongoing investigations of illegal activity by raising claims of misconduct which, under the bill, would require immediate investigation by the Attorney General, threatening the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information that could jeopardize the safety of witnesses and the integrity of investigations. Finally, the proposed bill would subject Department attorneys and employees to sanctions--including loss of pension--without the procedural safeguards for disciplining other federal employees. A ``Misconduct Review Board'' would be given authority to inject itself into ongoing criminal investigations, demanding confidential and classified material, and interfering with a cabinet officer's management of the internal affairs of a department. In all but the simplest of cases, prosecutors will face the risk of triggering at least some of the bill's provisions. Far from protecting the public from misguided Department employees, the proposed bill would inhibit vigorous investigation and prosecution of criminals, thus crippling the ability of federal prosecutors to enforce the very laws Congress has enacted. On a practical level, I can say this proposed bill has created greater concern in my office than any piece of legislation I can recall throughout my more than a dozen years as a federal prosecutor. Senior managers in my office-- outstanding and experienced prosecutors and civil litigators--have expressed the view that they would be reluctant to continue their federal service were this bill enacted. Similarly, District Attorneys have indicated they would be leery of cross-designating local prosecutors to assist in federal prosecutions, were they subject to the bill's provisions. Should this bill pass, there is a very real prospect of a significant loss of experienced lawyers from this office, leaving the public with talented but less experienced lawyers, willing to run the risk of operating under this bill (when their pension benefits are few), and determined to leave after fulfilling their minimum commitment. I cannot believe this what the bill's sponsors intended. As noted above, Department of Justice employees are already subject to multiple disciplinary mechanisms to ensure their adherence to the highest standards of professional conduct. Enacting a bill which virtually invites frivolous complaints designed to obstruct and impede legitimate law enforcement investigations will do nothing to ensure professional conduct of Department employees, but will, instead, discourage lawyers from carrying out their lawful duties. In the end, the unfortunate and unintended result will be a reduction in appropriately vigorous enforcement of Congress' laws, and the weakening of our federal criminal justice system. Please feel free to call me, should you have any questions concerning the above. Sincerely, Nora M. Manella, United States Attorney.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 1689, this day has been a long time coming. I first want to commend the chairmen and ranking members of the relevant committees, as well as my friend and colleague, Anna Eshoo, for their leadership. Mr. Speaker, in 1995, Congress enacted, over the President's veto, the Securities Litigation Reform Act. This act limits the opportunities to bring abusive and frivolous class action suits--suits which divert precious financial resources from leading-edge high technology companies. The act continues protections for investors against genuine fraud, as it should, but protects forward-looking statements made by companies issuing nationally-traded securities from strike suits. With ``strike'' suits in Federal courts less likely to succeed, a new venue has been increasingly used--State courts. Such suits potentially have the same chilling effect as those previously brought in Federal court--until today. The measure before us, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, sets forth clear and uniform standards for bringing securities class actions under State law and would generally proscribe bringing a private class action suit involving 50 or more parties except in Federal court. Mr. Speaker, enactment of this measure should complete an important reform initiated in 1995. Securities litigation needed reform. The future of our Nation's competitive advantage in the world lies in our ability to develop products and services that are on the leading edge of technology and research. The business ventures which undertake such activities are among the fastest growing sectors of our economy. Indeed, in many places in our country, including California's 36th District, they are the pride of our economy. But if these business ventures are saddled by the costs and distractions of unwarranted lawsuits, filed when stock prices fluctuate for reasons often beyond the control of business management, the consequences are to chill economic growth. Despite the absence of wrongdoing by managers, corporations are essentially forced to pay large sums to avoid even larger expenses associated with their legal defense. The ultimate loser, of course, is the individual long-term investor whose share value was diminished as a result of these suits. Mr. Speaker, let me assure my colleagues that the reform measure before us continues to protect investors. It recognizes the important role the private litigation system has played in maintaining the integrity of our capital markets. Yet, at the same time, the bill recognizes that forum shopping cannot be a new pathway for enterprising parties to gain new profits. The rights of the aggrieved investor to seek justice and restitution is maintained, while the opportunity to manipulate procedures to the detriment of the company and legitimate investors is hopefully ended. The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act is supported by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the administration and I urge its support.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, this is a hard issue for many, but I urge all of us to keep several things in mind. First, Roe versus Wade sets up a careful framework: Abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy are strictly limited. No one here is talking about changing or expanding that framework. Second, late-term abortions are tragic. We are talking about wanted pregnancies that go terribly wrong. Third, as our colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) said, doctors, not Congress, should choose the procedure to be used in the tragic event that a late-term abortion is necessary. Fourth, in my view, the President showed great courage in vetoing that bill and I think we should uphold his veto because, as the mother of four wanted children, the product of fortunately healthy pregnancies, I would have wanted the choice in the event that I learned late in my pregnancy that my fetus was so grossly deformed that it would not live beyond a few hours after birth, even if that, and that my reproductive health was at risk. I would have wanted that choice, and I do want that choice, under constitutional guarantees, for every woman in this country.