Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney]. (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just listened to the last speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], and would like to thank him for years of bipartisan cooperation under his leadership in the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development. I happen to agree with him that environmental issues need to be considered down the line. I was the sole vote on my side of the aisle against deleting all environmental issues from the base bill on which this amendment is based. I did so because, although the provisions in this original bill may not have been perfect, there are provisions that we should pass. There are ways to revise the Superfund law particularly and to provide for less costly, I think less costly, remediation of some of these closed bases and other sites, which will not only save scarce dollars but will get these lands back to community use faster. So I applaud what he is saying, and I pledge to work with him and anyone else on responsible ways to change the existing environmental practices so that they are more modern, less costly, and better for all the taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me and for giving me this opportunity, I again commend him for his professionalism, passion and poetry in the leadership role he serves on this committee. It is also an honor to serve with him and with our chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], and to rise in enthusiastic support of this bipartisan amendment. Mr. Chairman, we just voted down overwhelmingly an amendment to provide a 5-percent across-the-board cut in our defense budget. I voted against that amendment because I think that that form of cutting is not responsible. But it does not mean that all forms of cutting are not responsible. In fact, the pending amendment would cut at least $5.5 billion from our defense budget and that is very responsible. I commend to those who voted for the Sanders amendment and to those who voted against the Sanders amendment this particular bipartisan Dellums-Spence amendment. I spoke earlier in general debate, and I said that I support more effective, less costly defense that is ready for the next war, not the last one. I want the Pentagon to take full advantage of the revolution in military affairs as it modernizes equipment and doctrine for future conflicts, because that will ultimately bring costs down and effectiveness up. But modernizing requires an initial investment. In today's tight budgetary climate, funding for that investment must come from reductions. And logically, those reductions should be in excess infrastructure and ossified management practices. Right now the Pentagon spends too much on activities that have nothing to do with national security. I repeat, they have nothing to do with national security. Sixty percent of the defense budget and 45 percent of all military personnel are dedicated to support, not to war-fighting. No business could survive with that ratio of overhead to production. Those of us on the Committee on National Security know that the tooth-to-tail ratio is way out of line, and many other Members know that too. Reform-minded Pentagon officials need our support. Just before he released the QDR, Secretary Cohen told me that it is important for Congress to keep the pressure on, to help his management team overcome internal resistance to reform. The amendment before us is the best way of keeping the pressure on, to help the Pentagon modernize its management procedures and to bring the tooth-to-tail ratio back to reality. This amendment has broad support not only within Congress and the civilian leadership in the Department but among concerned outside groups, too. One of these is BENS, Business Executives for National Security, a nonpartisan organization of Democratic and Republican business leaders whose advisers include people like former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry. In a letter distributed to all Members, BENS urges support of this amendment and underscores the need to reduce headquarters staff. This amendment would reduce those staffs by 25 percent, cut the cost of financial management, encourage cost saving public-private competition, and simplify acquisition procedures. Mr. Chairman, this amendment moves us toward the objectives of the QDR. It continues the important work on acquisition reform that I think is the cornerstone of the legacy of former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry. Modernizing our forces to take advantage of the revolution in military affairs requires what Secretary Cohen calls a revolution in business affairs. This amendment provides the ammunition for that revolution. It makes good defense sense and it makes good business sense to pass this amendment. Let us take advantage of the opportunity it presents, and let us make a real difference in how the Pentagon does business. We can do better, and it can cost us less. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I note that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is temporarily off the floor, but would like to take a second to commend his opening remarks and him. He always shows incredible professionalism, passion, and poetry which I believe are unmatched in this body. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act of 1997. I support better defense forces prepared to fight the next war, not the last one. Unlike some colleagues, I think we can provide that for less money. We can do this if we make tough choices to fund weapons that make sense, and to cut weapons, forces, and infrastructure that do not make sense. I am proud to have been part of the bipartisan effort to draft this bill, and want to publicly commend the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the staff, and my committee colleagues. Mr. Chairman, this bill does much to restore the balance between the readiness of America's forces, the quality of life of America's service men and women, and the need to modernize America's forces to deal with future threats. It supports our commitments to our allies, especially through joint programs such as the tactical high energy laser program they have with Israel, programs which are mutually beneficial, reduce the time required to develop systems, and conserve resources. It encourages innovative approaches in R&D by rewarding partnerships between military and commercial enterprises which leverage cutting edge technologies and save scarce dollars. Such cost-sharing partnerships are now routine in the private sector but the Pentagon, used to the cold war way of doing business, has been slow to utilize them. As a member of the task force investigating sexual misconduct, I am pleased to note that the bill mandates serious study of improvements in the selection, training and on-the job assessment of all drill sergeants. True, the bill does not go far enough in some areas such as instituting best business practices throughout the department to reduce infrastructure, ensuring the rights of service women to equal health care overseas or providing long lead funding for nine more B-2s. If we are to have a revolution in military affairs that brings to the Pentagon the best technology, we must first have a revolution in business affairs to reduce the bloated overhead and help pay for recapitalization. We owe it to our service women and the women who are dependents of service members to ensure that they have access to the same health care services that are available to CONUS civilian and military counterparts. And, Mr. Chairman, we cannot achieve the objectives of the QDR to shape, respond and prepare without three wings or 30 B-2s, the only system that can fly great distances, penetrate hostile air space and deliver massive amounts of munitions on key targets with acceptable, even minimal risk. Amendments are going to be offered to correct these deficiencies. I will be offering one and will be supporting the others. Mr. Chairman, this bill is the bridge between cold war military forces, cold war ways of doing business and the military of the future. This bill helps build a military that is less expensive, more effective and ready for the next war. I urge its support.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a community leader and my friend, David Herbst, on his completion of a successful year as the president of the Westchester/LAX Chamber of Commerce. It has been my pleasure to participate with David in a number of important events, beginning with his magnificent installation ceremony on the campus of his alma mater, Loyola Marymount University. Under David's tenure, the Westchester/LAX chamber has also played host to important dignitaries, many of whom I cohosted, among them Mickey Kantor, then Secretary of Commerce, and Secretary of Defense William Cohen, who spoke to a breakfast of 400 business leaders just last month. David deserves a great deal of credit for superb leadership, yielding successful growth in the chamber's financial performance, community support, and interaction with governmental bodies. I salute David for being one of those rare people who is not only successful in the business world, but dedicated to our community. Westchester is a better place because of his work.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about H.R. 1758, the European Security Act. Critical issues related to NATO enlargement have not been adequately thought through--unfortunately, politics appears to have been put ahead of policy. I am primarily concerned about the military and financial obligations the United States will assume under an expanded NATO. First, we need to think further about the military obligations assumed by the United States in enlarging NATO. In bringing in new members, we must not degrade the ability of the alliance to conduct collective defense. We must guard both against this degradation, and against the possibility that the U.S. burden to the defense of NATO will increase by bringing in countries whose interoperability with NATO--key to collective defense--is still a long way off. Second, we have been presented with a number of estimates of the financial costs of NATO enlargement--and those estimates vary widely. The administration estimates a total cost of between $9 billion and $12 billion over the 1997-2009 period, with a cost to the United States of between $150 and $200 million. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that--depending on how NATO structures its forces after enlargement--costs will range from a low of $61 billion to a high of $125 billion over 15 years--1996-2010, with a U.S. share of $5 to $19 billion over the same period. Which is the more accurate estimate? Mr. Chairman, Congress needs more information on the financial costs of enlargement in order to make an informed decision. Specifically: What portion of these costs are due to developing the required interoperability among new and old members? What portion to developing infrastructure required by the enlargement of NATO? How will the on-going adaptation of alliance strategy and structures impact on the costs of enlargement? How will these costs be apportioned among the allies--old and new? Mr. Chairman, until these questions are answered, there cannot be a coherent policy that takes account of our resources and security interests.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, a friend, former neighbor, and unique natural force died last month. Iylene Weiss probably did more than any other individual to restore the largest wetland in Los Angeles County and its neighboring lagoon, known as Ballona. At her funeral, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter read a poem that she composed in two parts as Iylene's health failed. Ruth's poem is a special and deserved tribute and I ask unanimous consent to insert it in the Record at this point. Tribute to Iylene Weiss--by Councilwoman Ruth Galanter We cannot let more time go by without acknowledging that Iylene Weiss has pulled a clever trick. She made a plan and made it stick that no marina'd grace this shore; no docks, no paving, and, what's more, that birds and worms and clams and such and wetlands plants that you can touch, would fill this water and these banks. For this, Iylene, we give you thanks; we toast the docents and the kids, we toast the herons and the squids, we raise our cups not once, but twice, to cheer the work of Iylene Weiss. Farewell Peace be with you now, Iylene; the plants are coming nice and green, and all the folks who cheered you on, in realizing you'd be gone, and also moved by love for you, are doing work you used to do. At last they've grasped that central theme, that people working as a team, have more successes and more fun, than leaving all the work to one. And so, Iylene, it's safe to go; it's safe to trust that those you know, will carry on from where you've been; so peace be with you now, Iylene.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Rohrabacher amendment to H.R. 1757, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which would deny United States foreign assistance to Russia to prevent the transfer of missile technology to China and Iran. While I am a strong supporter of nonproliferation measures, and measures to increase stability in the Asia-Pacific region, I firmly believe this amendment would have exactly the opposite effect of what it intends: it would, in fact, encourage the illegal transfer of technology by Russia. The primary reason for the transfer of such technology in cash- strapped Russia is to obtain hard currency. To deny United States aid would make Russia's dire economic circumstances worse. The inevitable response by desperate business interests will be to seek even more illicit trade. We are all aware of allegations that have recently surfaced regarding Russian technological assistance to rogue nations that would enable them to build advanced missiles capable of targeting our friends and allies. These allegations must be taken seriously, by the administration and Congress. I have written to and called our National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, on several occasions and he has arranged several excellent briefings for Members. He has also assured me that President Clinton took up these issues with President Yeltsin at the May 27 Paris summit, follow-up continues, and further efforts will be made at the highest levels later this summer. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is well intended but misses the mark. We must provide appropriate aid to Russia to help it monitor proliferation, and to rebuild its economy so the impulse for illicit proliferation is reduced. In this case, less is less. Less aid means less control and less security. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mrs. HARMAN

Mrs. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Ewing of Illinois, expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of Peru should respect the rights of prisoners to timely legal procedures. I take particular interest in this amendment because of the problems one of my constituents, Ms. Krista Barnes, has had with the Peruvian judicial system. Ms. Barnes and a friend, Jennifer Davis, allegedly accepted an offer of a free trip to Peru in exchange for smuggling cocaine into that country. They were arrested in Lima, Peru on September 25, 1996. Mr. Chairman, Krista Barnes and her friend may have made a huge mistake. If they broke the law, I do not in any way advocate excusing them from the consequences. But they do deserve, at the least, a fair and speedy trial. Even after fully cooperating with Peruvian authorities, and providing information leading to additional arrests, they still have not been charged with a crime, let alone granted a trial. It has been more than 8 months since Krista Barnes and Jennifer Davis were taken into custody. Peruvian domestic law requires that formal charges be brought within 4 to 6 months after arrest. This amendment strikes the right balance by pointing out the substantial and important progress the Peruvian Government has made in restricting the flow of illegal drugs between our two countries, and by stating the importance of strict penalties for convicted drug smugglers. But it also makes clear just how important to America it is that her partners in the War on Drugs respect the rule of law and grant fair and speedy dispensation of justice to prisoners. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Ewing amendment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, considerable press attention has been devoted to the American Medical Association's shift in position and endorsement of the late term abortion ban voted on by the Senate today. In my view, no less attention should be devoted to the statement of the American Medical Women's Association, which has reiterated its strong opposition to any legislation intervening in medical and surgical care decisions. My good friend, Dr. Debra Judelson, president of AMWA and a resident of California, has repeatedly pointed out that it is irresponsible for the Government to interfere legislatively with physician-patient autonomy. Physicians, not the President or Congress, should determine appropriate medical options, particularly with respect to a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose. Mr. Speaker, I recommend my colleagues heed the strong statement of the American Medical Women's Association. Statement of the American Medical Women's Association on Abortion Legislation in the 105th Congress Alexandria, VA.--The American Medical Women's Association, ``is committed to protecting the reproductive rights of American women and has opposed any legislative intervention for medical and or surgical care decisions,'' says current AMWA President Debra R. Judelson, MD. This week, AMWA reiterated its opposition to H.R. 1122 and S. 6, which seek to ban a particular medical procedure. It is the opinion of AMWA's Executive Committee that legislative efforts to regulate abortion have been flawed. Concerns in the following areas have prevented AMWA from taking a position on recent legislative efforts focusing on abortion in the 105th Congress. AMWA is gravely concerned with governmental attempts to legislate medical decisionmaking through measures that do not protect a woman's physical and mental health, including future fertility, or fail to consider other pertinent issues, such as fetal abnormalities. Physicians and their patients base their decisions on the best available information at the time, often in emergency situations. AMWA strongly opposes governmental efforts to interfere with physician-patient autonomy. It is irresponsible to legislate a particular test of viability without recognition that viability cannot always be reliably determined. Length of gestation is not the sole measure of viability because fetal dating is an inexact science. AMWA resolutely opposes the levying of civil and criminal penalties for care provided in the best interest of the patient. AMWA strongly supports the principle that medical care decisions be left to the judgment of a woman and her physician without fear of civil action or criminal prosecution. Any forthcoming legislation will be carefully reviewed by AMWA based on the criteria outlined above, and AMWA will seek to ensure that there is no further erosion of the constitutionally protected rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. Says AMWA President Debra R. Judelson, MD, ``AMWA firmly believes that physicians, not the President or Congress, should determine appropriate medical options. We cannot and will not support any measures that seek to undermine the ability of physicians to make medical decisions.'' AMWA has long supported a woman's right to determine whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy without government restrictions placed on her physician's medical judgment and without spousal or parental interference. Founded in 1915, the American Medical Women's Association represents more than 10,000 women physicians and medical students and is dedicated to furthering the professional and personal development of its members and promoting women's health.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, today, this chamber continues the important progress first begun in 1993 to reduce the Federal deficit and reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. The 1993 budget was one of the most difficult votes I have cast, yet for 5 straight years, its effect has been to cut the deficit. The deficit is now at its lowest level in more than 20 years. This bipartisan balanced budget resolution keeps the momentum moving forward. It is based on realistic economic and policy assumptions that will sustain economic growth. But while the outline of the balanced budget before us is historic, let us not disguise the difficult steps ahead to translate that outline into specific legislative language. The resolution continues important investments in our society. It assumes extension of health insurance coverage to 5 million low-income children, the largest investment in education in more than 30 years, restoration of SSI eligibility to the elderly and disabled legal immigrants cut off last year, and maintenance of a strong national defense. Lastly, the resolution assumes enactment of needed tax changes for families and investors that will be paid for. The resolution sets forth a glidepath for reducing spending at a relatively constant rate for the next 5 years. Unlike previous budget plans, it does not postpone the most difficult cuts to the later years. In addition, the resolution calls for a two-track reconciliation process, thus requiring separate votes on the legislative proposals enacting savings and the proposals making tax changes. This will assure that deficit cutting precedes tax cuts. I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make in order the amendment proposed by my colleagues David Minge and Charlie Stenholm to include enforcement provisions to the budget resolution. Such enforcement provisions are critical to ensure that the deficit remains on the glidepath to balance by the year 2002 and beyond. None of us wants a repeat of past deficit reductions efforts that failed to live up to their promises. Indeed, without enforcement mechanisms, future deficit reduction efforts become less credible as they become harder to make. That's why, in particular, all portions of the budget--both spending and revenues--have to be included in the enforcement mechanism. All members and interest groups have to have a stake in maintaining the glidepath to a balanced budget. That means, as well, that future tax cuts must be contingent on meeting the revenue targets in the agreement. Despite these imperfections, the balanced budget resolution is the result of hard-fought compromise by all involved. I want to congratulate President Clinton and my Congressional colleagues, particularly the ranking member, Mr. Spratt, and the chairman, Mr. Kasich, who were directly involved in these difficult negotiations. I also congratulate my colleagues with whom I helped fashion the Blue Dog balanced budget plan. The Blue Dogs showed it could be done. The American people are the beneficiaries.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Julian Dixon, and I are frustrated by the failure of the Federal Communications Commission to act on applications from emergency broadcasters to use several unused common carrier frequencies. Because we are persuaded that the allocation of these frequencies is critical to protect the safety of our constituents and our police, we are introducing legislation establishing standards to assign them to emergency broadcasters in Southern California and the State of New Hampshire. In the absence of FCC action or the prospect for any action in the near future, this avenue seems to be the only way left for us to proceed. The South Bay Regional Communications Authority [SBRCA], one of the petitioners to the FCC, is comprised of law enforcement and public safety agencies in the cities of El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, and Manhattan Beach. Three of these cities are in my Congressional district. In June 1995, the Authority filed an application with the FCC requesting assignment and authority to use four vacant Public Land Mobile Service [PLMS] channels for critical public safety communications needs. In an order released April 24, 1996, the Commission denied the application. The Commission cited as its reason an ongoing ``refarming'' proceeding that will presumably benefit the Authority by increasing the number of frequencies devoted to emergency broadcast requirements. SBRCA appealed the decision and filed an application for reconsideration. That application is still pending. What is disturbing about the decision is the reference to the ``refarming'' proceeding. ``Refarming'' may not be completed for several more years and, once announced, may require emergency broadcasters to purchase new equipment in order to avail themselves of the increased number of frequencies. In the meantime, public safety agencies, including the South Bay Authority, have a critical need for new frequencies. At present, there are no common police and fire voice channels available for interoperability among these agencies and neighboring jurisdictions in the South Bay. According to the police chiefs in my District, interoperability and greater capacity are among the most critical problems facing the Authority now. Because the public safety cannot wait for the Commission to finalize its ``refarming'' proceeding, on at least two occasions, Mr. Dixon and other members of the LA County Congressional Delegation joined me in requesting the Commission to review its rules so that the frequencies requested may be awarded to the Authority on a temporary basis. Such a Commission decision is not unprecedented and occurred, for example, when the Commission granted a waiver to allow New York City area public safety agencies to use vacant UHF television channel 16 for land mobile operations. Granting a similar waiver and assigning additional frequencies would be invaluable to the Authority as it meets its obligations to protect the public safety. In response, and clearly misunderstanding my reference to the New York City precedent, the Commission replied that the Authority had not requested the use of vacant UHF television channels. The State of New Hampshire has had a similar request pending before the Commission for more than three years. The State wants to construct and operate a new statewide mobile radio system to serve the public safety needs of its citizens. The petition was denied in May, 1996, the Commission saying that these needs would be addressed in a yet-to-be- issued rulemaking concerning public safety spectrum needs through the year 2010. Also weighing-in on this matter, and underscoring the importance to law enforcement nationwide, then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick wrote to the Commission in support of South Bay's application. In her August, 1996 letter, Ms. Gorelick reiterated that from law enforcement's perspective the Commission's ``solution'' to increase spectrum availability is still several years away. ``In the meantime, law enforcement and public safety agencies in densely populated areas such as that served by South Bay are being faced with immediate and very real problem of insufficient spectrum.'' This should be a simple issue for the Commission. Under the policies outlined in its February 9, 1995 report on ``Meeting State and Local Agency Spectrum Needs Through the Year 2010,'' the FCC said that one of its policies is to handle critical public safety spectrum requirements on a case-by-case basis, including allowing the use of non-public safety frequencies where necessary. This seems to me to be a reasonable, common sense policy. The policy, however, has been implemented only in one recent instance involving a New York City request and, more recently, the FCC Wireless Bureau denied two similar requests, which are the basis of this legislation. This inconsistency raises questions about the adequacy of the FCC's existing policy and whether it is being applied in a fair and evenhanded manner. Complicating this matter further is the Commission's just-announced plans for the transitioning to digital television and the reallocation for public safety use of 24 MHZ of spectrum--4 existing unused TV channels--in the lightly used Channel 60-to-69 range. Unfortunately, because of the understandable need to accommodate all existing Los Angeles area television stations, it now appears that the plan will not work in Los Angeles and that no channels in the 60-to-69 range will be available for public safety use. This makes the full implementation of the Commission's Policy Statement even more important. As the most spectrum-congested region in the country, the Commission must be in a position to use whatever tools are available to make vacant spectrum available to meet public safety needs in Los Angeles. If there was ever a circumstance warranting application of Policy Statement's preference for case-by-case waivers, this is that circumstance. But both the New Hampshire and South Bay decisions by the Wireless Bureau seem to be premised on a contrary policy of handling spectrum use matters only through general allocation proceedings. Let me quote from the decision ``In the Matter of License Communications Services, Inc. and South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority'' in which the FCC said that ``rather than undermine our existing allocations framework by permitting ad hoc private use of commercial spectrum, we believe the public interest is better served by increasing frequency availability through the rulemaking process.'' In the same order the FCC said ``the creation of additional 470-512 MHZ frequencies by the Commission's actions in our `refarming' proceeding will benefit part 90 licensees, such as South Bay, that seek additional frequencies for system expansion. We, therefore, are denying the South Bay Petition for Waiver.'' Last, let me also quote from a May 1996 letter to me in which the FCC said ``South Bay will have increased opportunities to expand channel capacity within existing frequency allocation as a result of our `refarming' proceeding.'' The Commission can't have it both ways. How can it square these inconsistent policy statements? How long do public safety agencies have to wait before the FCC makes up its mind as to which policy should prevail? Why can't the Commission grant operating authority, even interim authority, for the frequencies requested by South Bay Regional Communication Authority and the State of New Hampshire? Mr. Speaker, the answer to these questions may be months, even years, away. Consequently, there is a need for the bill Mr. Dixon and I are introducing today. Emergency broadcasters in southern California and New Hampshire, and the public, have waited long enough.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the bipartisan amendment offered by my colleagues Marcy Kaptur, Frank Riggs, Marge Roukema, Tim Roemer and Jack Quinn, which would restore full funding for the Woman, Infants and Children Program, or WIC. WIC provides basic foods like milk, juice, and cereal to needy children through age 5 and nutrition education and supplements to pregnant and nursing women. The program serves 7.4 million women and children, and enjoys broad bipartisan support. As well it should: a spate of recent studies has shown the profound significance early nutrition has on child development. These studies back up twenty-two years of scientific research demonstrating that WIC is an excellent investment in our nation's future. Study after study has shown that each dollar spent on pregnant women in the WIC program saves up to $3.13 in Medicaid costs for mothers and infants in the first 60 days after birth and that pregnant women on Medicaid receiving WIC are less likely to deliver premature or low birth-weight babies. Volumes of scientific research have shown that poor child nutrition leads to health problems and can slow learning. As the mother of four, I find these results utterly unsurprising. Simple common sense tells us that kids are our future, and they need all the help they can get. That's why this amendment, which provides the WIC program with the minimum amount of funding it needs to continue serving needy children, is so important. In my home state of California alone, WIC will be unable to serve about 169,000 moms and kids if this amendment fails. Mr. Chairman, the facts are clear. This amendment is vital for our nation's children, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support its passage. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kaptur amendment to increase funding for the WIC Program by $38 million, and I commend my colleagues Ms. Kaptur and Ms. Roukema for their diligent efforts to obtain these funds. WIC is a program that works. Medical research has found that WIC reduces low birthweight, infant mortality, and anemia and improves diets. WIC has also been linked to improved cognitive development in children. At a time when early childhood development has become an issue of great national attention, it makes no sense to withhold funding from a program that successfully addresses these development issues. Both WIC participation levels and per participant food costs have increased, yet funding for the program has not increased to meet this need. The $38 million supplemental will still throw more than 180,000 needy women and children off the program. That is 180,000 pregnant women, malnourished infants, and vulnerable children lacking cereal, milk, formula--an astounding number of vulnerable people forced to find other means to meet the most basic nutritional needs for survival. At the current funding level, many States have had to begin cutting participants from the program. California WIC agencies are currently cutting participants from the program because of lack of sufficient funds to meet last year's participation levels. There is nothing, nothing more important than feeding our most vulnerable, than basic subsistence for the needy in our country. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning as a supporter of a fully funded WIC program, and want to commend our colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], for her passion and leadership on this issue. I had hoped also this morning to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], but he has been called away from the floor, so I will make my point now and hope that he will get back a bit later and be able to make his point. Mr. Speaker, the issue is the deficit reduction lockbox, which, sadly, is not in order under this rule. A lockbox, as my colleagues know, assures that amendments cutting spending from appropriations bills are translated into savings, not reallocated to other spending. To quote from a current movie, ``Show me the money,''--lockbox shows us the savings. The House has on three occasions overwhelmingly passed the deficit lockbox, twice as amendments to appropriations bills and once as a freestanding bill. Regrettably, the other body failed to match our efforts and this measure died with the adjournment of the 104th Congress. If lockbox has been enacted during the fiscal year 1997 appropriations process, almost $1 billion in spending could have been locked away for deficit reduction. The lockbox is a very simple mechanism, and will help restore fiscal responsibility to this body. I regret that the Committee on Rules could not make it in order as an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill, but I hope that the chairman and the full committee will work with us, a bipartisan group of Members, to make it a regular part of the appropriations process, starting with the first appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 867, the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997, and I commend my colleagues Dave Camp and Barbara Kennelly for their work in fashioning this important bipartisan legislation. This bill is designed to fix some very troubling problems in our Nation's adoption and foster-care programs by striking a balance between the goals of keeping families intact where possible, and, when necessary, moving kids quickly into permanent, loving homes. Under current law, States are required to make reasonable efforts both to keep maltreated children from being unnecessarily removed from their families, and, if children are removed, to reunify them with their families. Keeping families intact when possible, is preferable. But in the absence of clear laws or regulations defining reasonable efforts, there has been considerable confusion about when to bypass or discontinue such efforts, and place a child up for adoption. In other words, the reasonable efforts provision has sometimes served to keep kids in foster homes, instead of in permanent adoptive homes, longer than necessary. H.R. 867 represents a well-crafted refinement of current law. Under its provisions, States would no longer be required to attempt reunification of families in cases where aggravated circumstances such as chronic or sexual abuse exist. The bill also creates a clear timetable with binding time limits for the initiation of adoption proceedings once a child has been placed in foster care. In an important clarification, the bill provides foster parents the opportunity to be heard at child placement hearings. Finally, the bill creates a set of incentives for States to successfully place children in permanent adoptive homes. Mr. Chairman, as the mother of four children, I feel very strongly that a stable, permanent, loving family is vital to a child's development. This bill will remove an obstacle between kids and adoptive parents, and help move kids into a long-term nurturing environment. I can think of few issues more important, and I urge my colleagues to support passage.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman. I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 1275, the Civilian Space Authorization Act. I have said time and time again here on the House floor, and in the Science Committee during the last two Congresses when I had the honor of serving on that committee, that we must provide the Nation with an adequately funded civilian space program which balances human space flight with science, aeronautics, and technology. While we must act swiftly to balance the budget, I believe we must be careful to not make shortsighted cuts in our country's research and development efforts. In my view, H.R. 1275 gives our Nation a balanced space program. The bill moves us toward a permanent human presence in space, toward new and exciting scientific discoveries, and finally toward the development of a fully-reusable launch vehicle. I am particularly pleased that this legislation fully-funds NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. From the unique vantage point of space, NASA's Earth observing satellites will help us understand our changing planet. Mission to Planet Earth will provide us with scientific answers to a wide range of global change questions. We'll learn more about our planet's ozone layer and its polar ice caps. Most importantly, because of its comprehensive nature, Mission to Planet Earth will allow scientists to study the interplay between land, sea, and air here on our planet--perhaps to one day avoid the devastation which the residents of the Northern Plains are currently suffering. In addition to these and other scientific benefits, Mission to Planet Earth data will have immediate practical applications. Farmers will make use of soil condition information as they seek to better plant their crops. Firefighters are already using NASA remote sensing data to help them battle forest fires. The list goes on and on. Mr. Chairman, it was unfortunate that the 104th Congress was such a difficult one for Mission to Planet Earth, where the program was tossed around like a partisan football. But today, in a new Congress under new leadership, I would like to congratulate Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member George Brown; and Space Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher and Ranking Member Bud Cramer for putting partisanship behind and unifying support for this important program. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will continue our country's leadership in space well into the 21st century.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, with the sudden passing of Helen Bernstein last week, public education in Los Angeles suffered a terrible blow, one that will continue to ache for many years to come. Only 52 years old, Helen was struck by an automobile while crossing a street to address the Miracle Mile Residents Association. Those who were fortunate enough to glimpse the private Helen know that her daughter, mother, and brothers will mourn the premature loss of an unquenchable source of energy and warmth. To them, I offer my deepest sympathies. Those of us who were familiar with the public Helen--and who were products of the Los Angeles Unified School District--are painfully aware that the voice of its most articulate critic and energetic champion has been silenced forever. The civic life of Los Angeles will be impoverished by that silence. Helen's experience, intelligence, and wisdom will be especially missed in the months and years immediately ahead: Her beloved school system, the second largest in the Nation, will be negotiating difficult passage through budget restrictions, multicultural complexities, performance standards, and various proposals for reform and restructuring. Only 5 months ago, Helen became Mayor Richard Riordan's first education advisor. Previously, she had taught history in three different public schools and served as president of United Teachers-Los Angeles from 1990 to 1996. At the time of her death, Helen was running for election to the commission that will rewrite the Los Angeles City Charter. She was also developing a national teacher union reform network. Helen's passing, coupled with that of Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, will be a disorienting effect on the movement to revitalize public education in America. Congress, the President, State departments of education, and local school districts across the country are now placing a high priority on educational reform; but all of us feel an urgent need for the patient counsel of battle-tested veterans--in short, for the wisdom of a Helen Bernstein and an Albert Shanker. Only members of their immediate families will miss their presence more than public officials grappling with complexities of again creating a matchless system of public education.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern that the Pentagon appears, once again, to be prepared to avoid tough decisions. The ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review due to Congress on May 15 is supposed to be an all-inclusive examination of our national security needs. It has been described that way by every Defense Department official who has testified this year before the National Security Committee, on which I serve. Although Secretary Cohen's personal involvement in the QDR process is commendable, it now appears results may be a lot less than we expected. Some Department officials are apparently ready to delay critical decisions about the defense agency's infrastructure and Reserve components because, we are told, these questions require more study. Yet, each of these areas is clearly in need of reform. Each offers the potential for substantial savings, each has already been studied in great detail over the past 2 years, and each is critical to how we structure our national security forces for the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon has an opportunity now to provide more effective, less costly defense. That is right. Better defense for less money. But boldness and willingness to make tough decisions are required to do that. Delaying recommendations on the agencies, the infrastructure, and the Reserves is neither tough nor bold; it represents business as usual and is an indication that the Department will, once again, be hostage to parochial interests while the public pays more for unneeded capabilities. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's forces will not win tomorrow's wars. And yesterday's funding may not be available either. DOD can and must do better.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, every Member here has a story about the beginning of his or her interest in politics. Mine begins with an extraordinary pixie of a man named Jerry Pacht, who died last week in Los Angeles at age 75. Before embarking on a distinguished career on the Los Angeles Municipal Court followed by decades on the L.A. County Superior Court, Jerry ran for Congress, twice. His campaigns were high principle and low budget, and he recruited and excited a large band of volunteers. I was a high school student in 1960, the first year Jerry ran, and led what he called the kiddie brigade. Our colleague, Howard Berman, then president of the UCLA Young Democrats, played a far more senior role in the campaign. I learned a lot. My role was confined in substantial part to stuffing envelopes and mimeographing materials, but I saw how valuable those tasks were. In the days before television ads, communication of Jerry's message and his passion depended on people like me. Even in these slicker and more cynical times, the hub of campaigns still is centered on volunteers. Without them, candidates don't win. Of course it matters what the message is, and whether the messenger is credible. Though Jerry's runs for office may not have persuaded a majority of the voters, the qualities in him that excited me and others were on full display during his long and successful judicial career that followed. Son of a judge, Jerry's interest in a judicial career became known to Gov. Pat Brown who appointed him to the local bench in 1965 and promoted him a year later. He was a beloved figure--always insisting that the law be fairly applied, even if the cause it benefited was unpopular. No one ever accused Judge Pacht of any motive other than serving the public. In a press interview, he once said: ``I am not into making money. I always wanted to make some kind of mark, to change my society, do something to make it run better * * *.'' He surely achieved his goal. In his obituary in the Los Angeles Times, I learned that Jerry had visions of becoming a singer, and was delighted to be asked to sing the national anthem at a Dodger game. Jerry, I heard your song. I still do. I always will. My interest in politics goes back to my early experience on your campaign. It goes forward with your melody in my head. Godspeed.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School's Academic Decathlon team, which took fourth place statewide and first place in its division during last weekend's California Academic Decathlon held in Pomona, CA. This nine-member team earned 44,540 points in events designed to test academic knowledge in areas ranging from economics to science. They came away with 29 gold, silver, and bronze medals for various events and overall performance. In addition, one of the team members, Chris Luhrs, scored the most points of any student in Peninsula's division. I am proud to represent these intelligent and talented students, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating them and their families for their achievements.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pat Collins, a long- time activist, community leader, and champion of family planning in the 36th District. She is being recognized on Sunday, April 6, by the South Bay Friends of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles which she successfully cofounded in 1989. Pat has worked tirelessly for the combination of education, advocacy, and clinical services that define Planned Parenthood Los Angeles' mission. South Bay Friends has complemented this mission by establishing a speakers bureau for high schools, attending health fairs, planning fundraising efforts, and monitoring public policy concerning reproductive issues. Furthermore, Pat's enthusiasm and dedication were strong forces in expanding clinical services through the opening of the Planned Parenthood Los Angeles South Bay Center in 1993 which provided family planning services to 5,200 clients last year. Applying her ``big picture'' approach, her work in 1995 became international in scope. While serving on the board of the Population Communication Committee, Pat attended a collaborative meeting at the United Nations preceding the Cairo Conference on World Population. It is said that, ``If you want something done, ask a busy person''-- and that certainly applies to Pat Collins. In addition to her exceptional work with South Bay Friends and issues of population control, Pat has raised three daughters with her husband Richard, served as PTA President, church school director, Girl Scout leader, and vice president of the South Bay Law Wives. She directed 100 teachers aides in the schools, developed a peer counseling program at Miraleste High School, earned two masters degrees, and had a private practice as a marriage, family, and child counselor for several years. Mr. Speaker, I wish to join South Bay Friends of Planned Parenthood in honoring Pat Collins whose tireless contributions have enriched our community. She will be moving from Rancho Palos Verdes to northern California and our loss will be their gain.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I introduced legislation that requires the flying of the POW/MIA flag, a symbol of the Nation's commitment to service men and women held prisoner or missing, at Federal facilities, including U.S. post offices. The bipartisan bill, H.R. 1161, is in response to a recent incident where South Bay veterans were barred from flying the flag at U.S. post offices in Lomita and Rolling Hills Estates. There is no doubt that we need to secure a full accounting of the men and women who fought for our Nation's flag and who were captured by the enemy or listed as missing. Having the POW/MIA flag flown at Federal offices and facilities will help us remember the work still to be done for these courageous individuals and their families. One of the individuals leading the effort to have the POW/MIA flag flown prominently around the Nation is David Albert, a councilman in the city of Lomita. Mr. Speaker, I drafted the bill in response to complaints from Councilman Dave Albert and veterans' groups who were recently denied permission to fly the distinctive black and white flag at a POW/MIA memorial at the Lomita Post Office. A short time later, a POW/MIA flag flying over the post office in Palos Verdes was ordered removed by postal authorities. The apparent intent of the Postal Services' regulation was to insulate local postmasters from requests to fly flags other than the U.S. flag. When recently asked, Postmaster General Marvin Runyon responded that he saw no need to change the regulations. I'm disappointed by his answer. Postmasters are members of local communities and should be permitted to accommodate requests to fly flags, particularly one like the POW/MIA flag, which Congress has officially recognized as the symbol of our Nation's commitment to those still missing and unaccounted for. Currently, the POW/MIA flag is required to be flown only at national cemeteries on at most 3 days a year. H.R. 1161, supported by the National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia, expands the number of Federal sites where the flag will be flown. It also requires that the flag be flown on several specific national holidays associated with patriotism: Armed Forces Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day, Independence Day, Veterans Day, and National POW/MIA Recognition Day. I thank International Relations Committee Chairman Ben Gilman, Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon, Steve Horn, Jim Ramstad, Peter King, Mike McNulty and Tim Holden for joining me as original cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. I invite my other colleagues to join as well and I am pleased to share the text of the bill with them.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Simone M. Steinbroner of Manhattan Beach, CA, who will be celebrating her 100th birthday on April 1. Simone was born in the tiny village of Cognac, France, on April 1, 1897, the oldest of five children of Paul Jean Mounier and Jeanne Praud Mounier. She moved with her family several times as a young girl, first to Paris and then, with the outbreak of World War I to La Rochelle where her father was employed as an interpreter. At the age of 16, Simone became the youngest entrant to teachers college, graduating in 1917. It was on her summer vacation from teaching on the small coastal island of St. Pierre d'Oleron that her mother invited two American soldiers to dinner. There Simone met her future husband, Arthur Steinbroner, a sergeant in the American Expeditionary Force, and fell in love. Arthur and Simone set their wedding for August 1, but on July 5 received the upsetting news that Arthur was to be sent back to the United States the next day. It would be 18 months before enough money could be saved for Simone's passage to America. Simone left France on January 9, 1921, arriving in Los Angeles, then a sleepy town with fewer than 200,000 residents, on January 24. She and Arthur married on February 3, 1921, and had seven children in 9 years. Arthur passed away suddenly in 1948. Simone has lived in Los Angeles County for 76 years and has a total of 78 living descendants; 8 children, 28 grandchildren, 38 great- grandchildren, and 4 great-great grandchildren, with 2 more expected this year. She still maintains an active pace, teaching French to private students, playing the piano, dancing, reading, and corresponding to her numerous friends and progeny. As a member of the Legion of Mary, she regularly visits local nursing homes to comfort the sick and elderly. She is an inspiration to them all, all of whom are younger than her, and, in hearing her story, she is an inspiration to me as well. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Simone and in wishing her a happy 100th birthday.