Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong disappointment that the rule for debate of the Interior appropriations bill blocked an open and fair vote on funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. I support the NEA, as do a majority of my constituents and, according to poll after poll, a majority of Americans. NEA-funded activities have permitted public school students in San Pedro, Venice, and Torrance the opportunity to participate in improvisational theater sponsored by a touring performing arts and musical company. They have enjoyed special education operatic performances. They city of Venice has hosted numerous performing arts events, arts displays, and multi-media activities. And, a grant to the LA Theater Works Program in my district enabled a set of five American stage plays taped for radio to be donated to 500 underserved libraries throughout the country. Events, programs, and gifts such as these foster creativity and an appreciation of our rich and diverse cultural and artistic heritage. Mr. Chairman, private funds alone will not permit the continuation of activities like these should Congress eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. And, while I certainly understand the necessity of restructuring and reforming the NEA, elimination is not reform. As mandated in past Congresses, the NEA has worked tirelessly to ensure that local decision makers are given the ability to fund the programs needed and requested by their communities. The proposal to transfer arts funding to State agencies will only waste precious dollars in creating 50 new bureaucracies to administer a program effectively run now by the NEA. States and cities tell us they are concerned that other funding sources they currently enjoy in support of their arts programs will dry up. The House should be allowed to debate the future of this agency openly and fully and to vote. Regrettably, it won't. I oppose this rule which sanctions tyranny of the minority, and the ideologically driven policy it seeks to implement.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Councilman Peter M. Weber for 23 distinguished years of service to the city of Rolling Hills Estates and to the citizens of the 36th Congressional District. No Councilmember in the history of Rolling Hills Estates has served the City Council for more years than Peter Weber. He has served six 4- year terms as councilman, including 5 1-year terms as mayor. Marked by his affection for and dedication to preserving the city's unique character, he stood behind the critical decisions that have preserved its rural atmosphere and fostered its financial strength. To provide for the city quality recreation, Councilman Weber lobbied in favor of bringing the city stables under Rolling Hills Estates management. Also during his tenure, the annual Tracy Austin Tournament was brought under the auspices of the city's Park and Recreation Commission. Further improving the scenic qualities of the city, both Ernie Howlett and Highridge Parks were developed. In addition to parks, Peter Weber successfully prioritized the establishment of nature preserves. During his tenure, George F. Canyon and the Chandler Preserve were acquired and dedicated as open space in perpetuity, and the George F. Canyon Nature Center was conceptualized and subsequently opened to the public. These assets of Rolling Hills Estates remind us of the dedication and vision Councilman Weber had for the community, and they should be sources of great pride for Peter Weber. Councilman Weber was instrumental in the creation of the Peninsula Emergency Response Team [PERT], an information-gather- ing network to assist the Sheriff's department in times of civil unrest or natural disaster. As mayor, Peter Weber helped to establish the city's Economic Development Commission to enhance the city's commercial area. These agencies will help to ensure the future safety, success, and stability of Rolling Hills Estates. Peter Weber will always hold a place in the hearts of the citizens of Rolling Hills Estates. I am proud to join them in extending sincere admiration and appreciation to Peter and his family.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to serve as a new member of the Committee on Intelligence. I commend our chairman and the ranking member and the staff for their bipartisanship and professionalism. I sought appointment to this committee during two terms of Congress because I have a keen interest in issues relating to technology and satellite architecture. I often boast that I represent the aerospace center of the universe, the 36th district in California. Surely it is the satellite center of the universe. Also, as the ranking member said, I serve on the Committee on National Security, which gives me some additional insight into the defense functions served by our intelligence agencies. I rise in support of this bill, although I would like to share with our colleagues several reservations. My reservations concern a comment made by our chairman as part of his opening remarks. He said, in part, and I quote, ``We have pushed the intelligence community toward developing, acquiring, investing in, and deploying more flexible technological capabilities in order to collect key information on the highest priority targets.'' I certainly agree that we should push technology and that we should do collection on the highest priority targets, but I would also suggest that the consequences of doing this could lead to some bad results: First, program instability, and, second, proceeding with change without a full understanding of its consequences. This is a point made by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] in his opening remarks. It seems to me that our goal here is to make the right choices and the right changes among competing technologies. As to levels of funding, I support the level in this bill, the product of a thoughtful and professional exercise. Could we spend some dollars better? Sure, and we should. But let us do that, rather than mandate across-the-board cuts which may result in limiting our technological options. As I said in debate on this bill in the last Congress, intelligence funding is intelligent funding. Better information earlier is better offense and better defense. Our judgments about our worldwide geopolitical options and our defense strategic options on a particular battlefield depend in substantial part on good intelligence. To shortchange intelligence funding is to shortchange U.S. national security. Finally, I just want to comment on the colloquy we just had between the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] and our chairman. I support what the committee is doing to thoroughly understand and study whether or not the CIA played any role in drug trafficking in California. I would tell our colleagues that this issue is of intense interest in the Los Angeles community, and I hope that we share whatever we can appropriately share with the affected communities as soon as we can appropriately do so.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think all of us on the committee would agree that the revolution in military affairs for the future contains a huge technology component. I was just urging that as we proceed to push the envelope, we not throw out technologies that function well in pursuit of some future technology. Mr. Chairman, I also want to complete my comment about the importance of disseminating information to Los Angeles residents. As I think everyone on our committee knows, certainly the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dixon] knows, and other Members from Los Angeles know, this issue has garnered intense interest. If this committee can put it to rest finally by virtue of a very careful and thorough study, we need to communicate the results of that study to the residents of Los Angeles. I would urge us to do that as soon as possible.

Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 748, which, in the name of stopping terrorism, would mandate an automatic one-size-fits-all foreign policy and restrict the rights of American citizens and companies to do business in some countries overseas. We all agree that terrorism is abhorrent, and that stopping it must be a top foreign policy priority for the United States. The tough question, though, is how best to meet that goal. Are we better off adopting multilateral policies to deal with individual state sponsors of terrorism? Or should we automatically impose unilateral sanctions on every nation deemed a sponsor of terrorism? The bill before us today chooses the second answer to this question: Automatic sanctions. This is a tempting solution. After all, we're talking about countries like Iran, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea. There are few defenders of these regimes anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, there are three major costs associated with imposing unilateral sanctions. First, unilateral sanctions are rarely, if ever, an effective punishment. When American companies are barred from entering foreign markets, competitors from Asia and Europe are poised to take advantage. Without multilateral support for sanctions, then, the punitive effect of banning American business from a country may be minimal at best. Second, imposing unilateral sanctions means lost American jobs. It is self-evident that keeping American companies out of foreign markets means lost American wealth. Third, imposing unilateral sanctions will not necessarily end a foreign government's use of terrorism. In fact, in cases where terrorist regimes are generally supported by their subjects, imposing sanctions is likely only to increase anti-American sentiment and strengthen the hold of those in power. I do support unilateral sanctions in certain targeted instances, for example with Iran. But taking away the President's prerogative to choose, and Congress's ability to assess whether to use this blunt policy tool, as the bill before us would do, will make our antiterrorism foreign policy worse, not better. Mr. Speaker, we should do everything in our power to end all forms of terrorism. We are right to lead international efforts to isolate and punish terrorists. But imposing the automatic one-size-fits-all response to terrorism contained in H.R. 748 will be ineffective and costly. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] was talking about priorities. I rise in support of the B-2 and its priority role in American military strategy. This amendment offers us the wrong choices. This issue is not about the reserve components or about whether the B-2 is capable of doing what it is advertised to do. In future warfare, technology will be more important than manpower. Using large forces, whether for combat or to support forces engaged in combat, will be very risky given the lucrative target they present for weapons of mass destruction. The reserve components are being drawn down, and that is an appropriate course of action given likely warfare scenarios. Trading the B-2, a vital asset for all parts of our strategy, to fund reserve component accounts that will be substantially reduced in the future does not make much sense. The question is not whether the B-2 does what is promised, as some would have us believe, or whether other platforms can do the same job, because B-2 performance exceeds standards. We have heard about its stealth, we have heard about how it can meet the QDR requirements of shape, respond and prepare. It is the only system that can fly great distances, penetrate hostile airspace and deliver massive amounts of munitions on key targets with acceptable, even minimal, risks. During last week's debate on the defense authorization bill, I repeatedly stated my view that we can buy a better defense for less money. We can. We can and we must fund essential weapons systems including long-lead funding for 9 more B-2s. We can and we must cut outmoded weapons systems and excess infrastructure. That is the right trade. The trade in this amendment is the wrong trade. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 1997 graduating classes of the San Pedro/Narbonne Community Adult School. I was sorry to miss the ceremonies on Wednesday evening which honored students who successfully met the requirements for ESL competency certificates, eighth grade diplomas, and high school diplomas. I also congratulate principal Camilla Kocol and all the faculty and staff of the San Pedro/Narbonne Community Adult School. It is my pleasure to share with my colleagues a poem that was written by one of the students of the school's creative writing class. This poem was recited by author and adult school student, Bette Ann Schroeder, at Wednesday's graduation ceremony: I Am An American I am an American. My grandfather came from China in the 1800s and helped build the railroads of the West. I am an American. My grandfather came from England in the 1800s and worked in the coal mines of Illinois. I am an American. My grandfather came first over the Bering Strait and the Isthmus of Panama to roam the forests and valleys of this great land. I am an American. My grandfather came from Germany in the 19th Century and started Kindergartens. I am an American. My grandfather was captured in Africa and brought to slave in the cotton fields of the South. I am an American. My grandfather came from Japan in the 1900s and founded the abalone fishery in San Pedro. I am an American. My grandfather fled Pancho Villa in Mexico and worked in the fields of the Imperial Valley. I am an American. It was not easy to forget the homeland, to learn the language, to make a living, to struggle against bigotry, to change my ways. I am an American. I am all the cultures of the world, all the religions of the world, all the legends and lore of the world, all the struggles for freedom everywhere. I am all of these, and all of these make me an American.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. If I could just have a copy of the code that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] was referring to, I would like to read that right now. Mr. Chairman, the restriction on the use of funds says, the one that remains in the code, ``except where the life of the mother would be endangered.'' There is no exception for rape and incest. I would like to put that in the Record. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the cochair of the Women's Caucus.

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned that this amendment has bipartisan support. I would now like to yield 1 minute to our colleague from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], a former member of the Committee on National Security and a leader in this fight last year.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. I just would like to say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] that I respect his deeply held views, and I assume he respects mine. The law of the land is Rowe versus Wade, which was carefully decided by the Supreme Court almost 30 years ago, and that is what is at issue here. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to point out to my colleague and good friend from Indiana, who is a lawyer himself, that section 1093(a) of title X, which remains in effect, which is not repealed by my amendment, says, ``Restriction on use of funds: Funds available to the Department of Defense may not be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.'' We are not using Federal funds for abortions. We are not repealing that section of law. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking member of the Committee on National Security and my good friend.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am the mother of four children. I chose motherhood under the constitutional protections and access to medical care guaranteed by Roe versus Wade. Our service women and their dependents deserve the same chances to make their own choices. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would do this. It would give U.S. service- women stationed overseas access to Department of Defense health facilities by repealing a provision of law which bars these women from using their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military hospitals. Mr. Chairman, women who volunteer to serve in our armed forces already give up many freedoms and risk their lives to defend our country. They should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health and their basic constitutional rights to a policy with no valid military purpose. This is about women's health. Local facilities in foreign nations are not equipped to safely handle certain procedures, and medical standards may be far lower than those in the United States. We are putting some of our own at risk. And it is about fairness, too. Service-women and military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special treatment, only the right to receive the same services guaranteed to American women under Roe versus Wade, at their own expense, that are available in this country. Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not permit taxpayer-funded abortions at military hospitals, nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortion on principle or as a matter of conscience to perform an abortion. The amendment merely reinstates the policy that was in effect from 1973 to 1988 and again from 1993 to 1996. This is an issue with broad bipartisan support, including a majority of women Members of this House and the bipartisan cochairs of our Women's Caucus. My amendment also has strong support from health care providers, organizations like the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is also supported by the Department of Defense. In sum, Mr. Chairman, this is not about public funding. My amendment only permits women to pay for their choices. The issue is simple: Service-women and military dependents deserve equal access to health care procedures regardless of where they are stationed. Equal access to health care for women, that is the title of this amendment. That ought to be one of the principal objectives of our military in which women play so prominent a part. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I rise in reluctant opposition to a well-intended amendment offered by my colleagues, the ranking member and chairman of the Committee on National Security. Let me explain. I share their goal of preventing harmful proliferation. Of course I share it. As a member of the committee on National Security I spend much of my time, and we all do, trying to protect our country against harmful proliferation. But I do not think this legislation achieves the goal. In January, 1996, the United States decontrolled export of computers up to a speed of 7,000 MTOPS to so-called tier-III countries. This was done as a consequence of a study by independent experts commissioned by the United States government to determine what level of computer technology existed outside the United States, and what level needed to be controlled for national security purposes. It was believed, correctly, in my view, that continuing to rigorously license widely available computer technology would undermine efforts to control truly significant technology. That is what is at issue here: how do we control truly significant technology. We all want to keep certain computer technology out of the hands of China and Russia, but this amendment would apply to a much broader group of countries, including Israel, one of our closest allies. It is overkill. I suggest that the best way to go is to support the existing export control laws. That is right, support the existing laws. Those who violate our export control laws, the ones on the books now, could face a prohibition of all exports for the company of up to 20 years, 10 years in prison, and a $50,000 fine for each violation. Mr. Chairman, these are strict penalties. Enforcing existing sanctions is the right way to go. This unilateral approach to deny widely available technology will only hurt American companies, and will not help national security. I urge a ``no'' vote.