Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1122, the late-term abortion ban, which represents a direct challenge to Roe versus Wade and a woman's right to choose. I cannot support legislation which takes choices about a woman's health from her, her family, and her doctor, and places them in the hands of legislators. And make no mistake about it: that's exactly what this bill is designed to do. With no exception for the health of the mother, this bill is not about families and children; it's about laying the groundwork for an assault on reproductive choice. Since the initial introduction of this bill, I have met with a number of women who had the procedure this bill attempts to ban, and in each case the story was the same. These were wanted children but, to each woman's horror, it was learned at 30 weeks or more of pregnancy that the baby had such severe deformities--no internal organs, a brain outside the head, no brain--as to prevent its survival outside the womb. As Coreen Costello told me: In my 30th week of my third pregnancy, I had a procedure that would have been banned by [H.R. 1122]. Our daughter, Katherine Grace, was diagnosed with a lethal neurological disorder that left her unable to move any part of her tiny body for almost two months. Her muscles had stopped growing and her vital organs were failing. Her head was swollen with fluid, her little body was stiff and rigid and excess fluid was puddling in my uterus. Our doctors--some of the best medical experts in the world--told us there was no hope for our daughter. Because of our strong pro-life views, we rejected having an abortion. But when it became apparent that the pregnancy was affecting my health and might ruin my fertility, we knew we had to act and an intact D&E was the best option for my circumstances. For women like Coreen Costello, the ability to bear children in the future will be jeopardized if they do not have the medical option that H.R. 1122 bans. This is a tremendously difficult, painful, and above all personal choice, and legislators should not force their will on women or medical professionals in this situation. Mr. Speaker, there is simply no reason not to include an exemption in this bill for a woman's health. The fact that there is no such exemption in the bill's language points to the political nature of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to consider the importance of protecting women, and to vote against this bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from a trip to Israel where I reviewed important aspects of the longstanding United States- Israel defense relationship. Nobody can visit this region without being struck by the fragility of the peace process and the looming potential for violence. During our meeting, Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechi emphasized both the military risks in the region and the willingness of Israel to take risks in pursuit of peace. I am deeply concerned, however, that the United States appears to be holding Israel to one standard and her peace partners to another. Friends and allies may disagree over the appropriateness or timing of building in Har Homa, but this administration's handling of the issue is surprising and potentially counterproductive--not to mention confusing. The administration should be congratulated for standing up in the United Nations and vetoing the anti-Israel resolution brought before the Security Council earlier this month. While condemning the Israeli Government's decision to build Jewish housing in Har Homa, the resolution did not address the failure of the Palestinians to live up to many of their commitments under the Oslo accords. The resolution made no mention of the many steps Israel has taken for peace, including redeploying Israeli security forces in Hebron, releasing terrorists convicted of killing Israelis and proposing to cede additional lands in the West Bank. The proposed United Nations resolution would have been extremely damaging to the peace process. The American veto told the world that we would not let our friend and ally be bullied, nor our concern for rational discourse and diplomacy be railroaded. However, the actions this administration has taken since the U.N. veto--publicly criticizing Israel and agreeing to take part in an international conference in Gaza to which Israel was not even invited-- threaten to undermine not only the positive effects of the veto, but the honest broker role the United States must play to promote peace in the Middle East. Over the last week, the world has seen the President of the United States standing with Yassir Arafat and Egyptian President Mubarak, harshly criticizing Israel while ignoring the tangible risks she has taken. These public reprimands and actions do not serve the cause of peace and can only increase the potential for violent confrontation. Mr. Speaker, the administration needs to treat all of our allies fairly. It has not done so in this case.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, though some appointments of the Clinton administration may be underwhelming, the selection 4 years ago of Ann Brown to be Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission continues to gather rave reviews. Ann is the CPSC's seventh Chairman, and I recommend that the agency retire her jersey. Consumer advocacy has been her passion for two decades, including service as vice president of the Consumer Federation of America for nearly 15 years and chairman of Public Voice for 11. Ann understands which products harm children--from venetian blind cord loops to pajama drawstrings--and how to persuade industry and Congress to sell safety. Her focus and her voice are always clear. Ann celebrates a milestone birthday this month. No one will believe which one, and I wonder if, just this once, we can waive the consumer's right to know. Happy birthday to an extraordinarily competent public servant, lively and dear friend, and Smith College alumna. Your congressional fan club salutes you.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 36, which approves the President's finding that withholding family planning funds has a negative impact on international population programs. These funds are crucial to the health of women worldwide, and represent the single most effective means our country uses to reduce the worldwide rate of abortion. A recent Rockefeller Foundation report amply demonstrates the importance and success of America's three-decade commitment to family planning programs: in countries where such programs are active, contraceptive usage rates among women have increased from 10 to 50 percent. This has resulted in lowering the average number of children borne by women in these nations from six to three, helping millions of women evade poverty and maintain their health. According to a UNICEF report, family planning programs, by helping women avoid risky pregnancies, can prevent up to 100,000 of the 600,000 annual maternal deaths. It's no wonder organizations like CARE and Save the Children strongly support this resolution. I also stand in firm opposition to the Smith-Oberstar alternative resolution, which would reinstate the Mexico City gag order and delay the release of already appropriated family planning funds 4 additional months. I hope my colleagues will not be fooled by this antifamily planning resolution. Under current law, no U.S. funds can be used to perform or lobby for abortions. For the past 24 years, no one has produced any evidence that one penny of this funding has ever been used for abortion. In fact, the Smith bill will, in the words of passionate abortion opponent Senator Mark Hatfield, ``contribute to an increase of abortions worldwide.'' By some estimates, the Smith bill could result in an additional 1.6 million abortions worldwide. Furthermore, this resolution, if approved, will merely release funds which have already been appropriated--it will not, as opponents of family planning have suggested, add a single penny to our foreign aid spending. Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't provide any new spending. It will help save the lives and health of millions of women and keep many more children from becoming orphans. And it will decrease the number of abortions performed worldwide. I strongly urge my colleagues to pass this pro-family, pro-woman resolution.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Elliott P. Laws, who is stepping down from his position as EPA's Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the end of this week. In my view, no member of the Clinton administration has been more effective in serving the American people. Like many, Elliott possesses the necessary intelligence, creativity, and patience. But what has made Elliott truly special is that he is a caring and compassionate person-- qualities which pervade every aspect of his work. With his vast experience not only in the Federal Government, but also in the private sector and at the State level, it is no wonder that Elliott has not tolerated business as usual at the EPA. Elliott embodies the notion of reinventing government. For more than 2 years, Elliott and I have worked together to help constituents of mine who have the misfortune of living between two Superfund sites--a former DDT manufacturing plant and toxic waste pits. Before Elliott got involved, EPA seemed content to stick with the old way of doing business and planned to temporarily move residents, remove toxic DDT from their homes, and then return them to their neighborhood--notwithstanding the waste pits which loomed nearby. Once I called on Elliott for help, he made it clear that the old way was not acceptable, and that an innovative solution had to be found. To begin with, Elliott came to California to meet with residents in their own backyards to learn the scope of the problem from them. Elliott used his persuasiveness to get local residents and potential responsible parties to sit down with a mediator to discuss ways to permanently relocate those at the site. Months and months of hard work by everyone involved has apparently paid off and a buyout plan will hopefully be ratified in the next few weeks. Residents will be permanently relocated, and can finally move on with their lives. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government needs more public servants like Elliott Laws. I wish him well in all of his future endeavors.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, naming a post office after our friend and colleague Frank Tejeda is a wonderful thing. I support it. I would like to suggest in addition, however, that we consider dedicating this Congress to the principles he embodied. And they are, as we have all heard, humility, kindness, intellect and compassion. These are critical things for all of us to consider, if we are to do something productive in the next 2 years. When I heard that my classmate, my neighbor in the Cannon Building and my colleague on the Committee on National Security had died, my first question was, why. Why are the nicest among us taken first? I asked the same question in the last Congress when Bill Emerson, another one of the nicest people here died. It is a shame to lose somebody who makes you understand why you are here, who makes you want to hug the person next to you, who makes you warm about the endeavor we are engaged in. It is an enormous shame and loss. I say to the Tejeda family, you produced the best. And I say to Texas, you are a State that produces some of the biggest heroes in our Nation's history. I know that Frank's star will be among those. Vaya con Dios, amigo.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss of Max Lyon and Karl Mueggler, two constituents of mine who were both tragically killed in an avalanche during a skiing trip to Utah earlier this month. Max and Karl will be missed by many, especially by their students at the Chadwick School in Palos Verdes. Max served as the school's outdoor education program director since 1990 and was nationally known for his work in teaching youngsters about nature. Karl was an outdoor education instructor since 1991 and worked with Max to keep Chadwick students in touch with our environment. Max and Karl touched the life of every Chadwick student. Whether it was on one of their kayak trips to Baja California or on one of their rock-climbing adventures in Joshua Tree, Max and Karl taught Chadwick youngsters how important it is to preserve and protect our environment. Max and Karl understood that unless today's children take an active role in environmental protection, future generations will never be able to enjoy our country's outdoor heritage. In the words of Nathan Reynolds, Chadwick's headmaster, ``Max and Karl taught so many of us to better love and appreciate the world. They affected us all. We are the better because they touched our lives.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in extending heartfelt condolences to the Lyon and Mueggler families.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Representative Millender- McDonald and I are proud to join in congratulating and thanking Ezunial Burts for a distinguished 12 year record of service to the port of Los Angeles and to the citizens of Los Angeles County. As he departs from his position as executive director at the port to take the reins as president of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, Eze can look around to see the remarkable achievements of his tenure. Whether measured by soaring increases in cargo tonnage and container volume or by its tremendous impact on the economy of southern California, Eze led the port to unprecedented growth. Major capital improvements completed in the last 12 years include the intermodal container transfer facility, new container terminals for Trans Pacific Container Service [TraPac] and Nippon Yusen Kaisha [NYK], and the new World Cruise Center, currently the busiest west coast passenger facility. And the future is equally promising. The ongoing construction of new, state-of-the-art facilities, including the $2 billion Alameda corridor and $600 million pier 300/400 projects, will help ensure that the port is prepared for trade in the 21st century. As a testament to the port's financial strength, all three major bond rating agencies gave the port AA ratings, the highest of any U.S. port without taxing authority. Eze has demonstrated many strengths that will suit him well in his new career. He has been tremendously skillful working with diverse groups of maritime partners and the international trade community and his genuine warmth and concern for port employees have won him the friendship, admiration, and respect of the 670-member port management team and staff. He has served on many advisory committees and boards affiliated with port authorities and trade policy, including the Intergovernmental Policy Committee of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative under the Clinton administration. Eze also has a laudable record of service to the community at large, serving on the board of directors of such organizations as the National Forum for Black Public Administrators, the Metropolitan YMCA, Hancock Savings and Loan and the California Chamber of Commerce. Eze will be sorely missed, but his legacy remains. We join the port community and our constituents in extending to him sincere appreciation and wishing him and his family every success as he assumes the critical job of president of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, among the more extreme laws put in place by the last Congress is the policy banning privately funded abortions performed at overseas military hospitals. This policy means that women serving overseas in our Nation's Armed Forces cannot exercise the same constitutional rights afforded women living in the continental United States. These servicewomen and their dependents could be forced to seek illegal and unsafe procedures or could be forced to delay the procedure until they can return to the United States. This is an issue of fundamental fairness. Servicewomen and military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special treatment, only the right to receive the same constitutionally protected medical services that women in the United States receive. That's why today, as the senior Democratic woman on the House National Security Committee, I am introducing the ``Freedom of Choice for Women in the Uniformed Services Act.'' This bill simply repeals the statutory prohibition on abortions in overseas military hospitals and restores the law to what it was during most of the Reagan administration. If enacted, women would be permitted to use their own funds to obtain abortion services. No Federal funds would be used and health care professionals who are opposed to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle would not be required to do so. I would like to thank my colleagues Connie Morella, Rosa DeLauro, Sue Kelly, Ron Dellums, John Baldacci, Eva Clayton, John Conyers, Sam Farr, Barney Frank, Martin Frost, Lynn Rivers, Lucille Roybal-Allard, and Louise Slaughter for joining me as original cosponsors. I urge the House to take up and pass this important legislation restoring the right of freedom of choice to women serving overseas in our Nation's Armed Forces.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I introduced, with my friend and colleague Representative Tom Campbell, a bill to reimburse the States for the added costs of educating the children of illegal immigrants. According to Gov. Pete Wilson, such costs to the State of California totaled over $1.5 billion in fiscal year 1994-95 alone. The Equity in Public Education Act of 1996 is a fair and bipartisan solution for reimbursing the disproportionate costs which States such as California incur by educating illegal alien children in public schools. Requiring States to foot the bill for the Federal Government's failure to stop illegal immigration is unfair and inequitable. Border control is a Federal responsibility. The Nation's inability to adequately control our borders should not result in additional costs to States. Unfortunately, other efforts to solve the problem have centered on kicking kids out of school or forcing local school administrators to act as INS agents and determine the status of each student. As nearly every national police organization has noted, the effect of such policies is to put kids on the streets, where they are likely to exacerbate our crime problem, and to render them part of a permanent, unemployable underclass. Mr. Speaker, there is a better solution to this problem, one that both sides of the aisle can agree on. The bill which we have introduced today authorizes an equitable reimbursement formula for the costs of educating illegal immigrant students without an immigration status determination being made at the school site. I ask that the text of the bill be printed following my statement.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, included as a provision in the Coast Guard Authorization Conference Report is the California Cruise Ship Act, which I and other members of the California delegation re-introduced earlier this Congress to help our State's tourism industry. Currently under the Johnson Act, a cruise ship that makes an intrastate stop is subject to State law even if that ship travels in international waters and is destined for another State or foreign country. Using this loophole and its authority to regulate gambling, States like California prohibit gambling aboard these ships. The provision included in this conference report, and which passed both the House and Senate in our respective Coast Guard authorization bills, would allow gambling on internationally-bound cruises and cruises bound for another State. It does not result in the expansion of gambling on the mainland, which remains under State control. Instead, the provision simply amends the Johnson Act to allow Federal control over voyages that begin and end in the same State so long as part of the voyage is to another country or another State within 3 days of leaving State waters. This issue is of great interest of the citizens of San Pedro and Catalina Islands whom I represent. According to Catalina's Chamber of Commerce, the city of Avalon itself loses $1.5 million annually in canceled port visits because of the existing restriction. Similarly, the city of San Diego, from which many cruises originate, is affected. That's why Lynn Schenk, my friend and colleague who was elected with me in 1992, introduced the original California Cruise Ship Act. Her measure passed the House in the 103d Congress, but was not considered in the other body. Today's action, and the final enactment of the California Cruise Ship Act, is a tribute to her dedicated efforts and perseverance. I strongly support this provision and thank the members of the Transportation Committee and the Coast Guard Subcommittee for their help in moving this important change forward toward enactment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as the daughter of a legal immigrant father who fled Nazi Germany, I understand the strength that legal immigration has brought to America. I regret that provisions unfairly targeting legal immigrants have been added to this bill. But I firmly believe that we must act now to stop illegal immigration, and so I rise in support of H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act, which tackles many of the tough issues around illegal immigration, and speaks to one of our fundamental values: that all of us have to live and work by the same set of rules. As a member of the bipartisan task force that contributed many of the best features of this bill, I commend the leadership of our California colleague, Elton Gallegly. This bill doubles the number of Border Patrol agents to 10,000 over the next 5 years. And it authorizes the purchase of much-needed equipment and technology to aid these new agents in the fight against increasingly sophisticated alien smuggling rings. It also takes some important first steps toward eliminating the jobs for undocumented workers which are the primary lure for illegal immigration. It authorizes new eligibility-verification programs to keep undocumented workers from obtaining employment, and to protect the vast majority of American businesses who would never willingly hire an undocumented worker. In addition, it strengthens much-needed anticounterfeiting laws. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect. I am firmly committed to changing its unfair provisions targeting legal immigrants. And I am disappointed to see that provisions increasing civil penalties on employers who hire undocumented workers at the expense of American labor have been removed. But on balance, this bill is important and necessary. It represents progress. And as the Torrance Daily Breeze has editorialized, ``California needs this [bill].'' I urge its passage.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I saluted the bipartisan leadership of my California colleague, Elton Gallegly, and joined a majority of my colleagues in voting for tough measures to combat illegal immigration. We voted to increase control of our borders by doubling the size of the Border Patrol, to remove employment opportunities for undocumented workers, and to strengthen anticounterfeiting laws so employers can conduct fair and even-handed checks of legal status. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us now, to allow the States to deny public education to the children of illegal immigrants, is bad public policy. As the Torrance Daily Breeze editorializes: . . . the Gallegly amendment is plainly abhorrent. To begin with, it would do absolutely nothing to counter illegal immigration. Far worse, it would create by deliberate design a growing underclass of illiterate young people denied the opportunity to learn English, much less acquire the basic education required to get a job one day and support themselves. Nearly every major law enforcement organization opposes this bill. They know its enactment will worsen our crime rate. Chief Tim Grimmond of the El Segundo Police told me that kicking kids out of school ``doesn't mean the families will pack up and leave * * * it will leave us with kids who have nothing to do except get into trouble.'' Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration violates one of our fundamental values: that all of us have to live and work by the same set of rules. We should punish those who break our laws--the parents. As Chief Gary Johansen of the Palos Verdes Estates Police Department told me, the bill's focus on schoolchildren is ``simply a bad idea.'' I urge its defeat. [From the Daily Breeze, Sept. 20, 1996] Immigration Bill in U.S. Interest encouraging signs from Capitol There are encouraging signs on Capitol Hill that Republican leaders finally are coming to their senses on immigration reform by scuttling the repugnant Gallegly amendment. The sooner, the better. Authored by Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, the provision is the biggest roadblock to passage of a sweeping immigration bill that is critically important to California. The amendment would allow states to kick an estimated 700,000 illegal-immigrant children out of public classrooms, leaving them idle on street corners and in other crime-prone situations. As public policy, the Gallegly amendment is plainly abhorrent. To begin with, it would do absolutely nothing to counter illegal immigration. Far worse, it would create by deliberate design a growing underclass of illiterate young people denied the opportunity to learn English, much less acquire the basic education required to get a job one day and support themselves. The disastrous social implications of the House-passed amendment are clear to a majority of senators, including a dozen Republicans, who have announced their opposition to it. Consequently, the immigration bill will not get out of Congress unless the school provision is stripped from it. Some GOP lawmakers would rather let the bill die than give President Clinton an opportunity to sign a measure that is popular in vote-rich California. But Senate Republican leader Trent Lott suggested Wednesday it would not be ``in the best interest of the country'' to kill the measure over the Gallegy amendment. He's right. Republicans who control a House-Senate conference committee on the bill should jettison the education provision and get the measure to the president's desk before they adjourn for the election. Among other badly needed reforms, the legislation would double the size of the U.S. Border Patrol, stiffen penalties for document fraud and alien smuggling, and make it easier for employers to verify that prospective workers are legal. Also Wednesday, there were rumblings on Capitol Hill that Clinton might veto the bill even if the Gallegly amendment is removed. Several liberal Democrats are raising objections to other elements of the bill and urging a veto. Vetoing this landmark legislation would be not only bad public policy but also politically stupid for the White House. California needs this sweeping reform measure-- providing the punitive Gallegly amendment is discarded.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 3666, the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. The conference report under consideration today is proof positive that Congress can deliver for the American people if it works from the sensible center. Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Lewis and ranking member Lewis Stokes should be commended for drafting a bill that is free of controversial riders and draconian spending cuts. Rather, this conference report moves us toward a balanced budget while continuing to invest in many key veterans, housing, space, and environmental programs. As the representative of the aerospace center of the universe, I am especially pleased that the conferees provided $100 million more for NASA than the original House-passed measure. Investments in NASA and our Nation's space program are investments in our future. The recent discovery of possible ancient Martian life and Astronaut Shannon Lucid's record-setting stay in space have put NASA on the front pages of newspapers across the world. Such news reminds the public of the great challenges space exploration continues to pose to our nation. We in Congress must do our part by keeping NASA robust. Today's legislation fully funds several key NASA programs critical to our space program and to my South Bay district. The Mission to Planet Earth, a target of many for extreme budget cuts, will help us understand global climate change issues from space. The international space station will serve as our stepping stone to future space exploration. The advanced x-ray astrophysics facility telescope [AXAF] will soon be our Nation's next great observatory. The tracking and data relay satellites [TDRS] will provide NASA with crucial communication links to its astronauts, spacecraft and instruments. And, the X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle Program will help us develop cheap and reliable access to space. Mr. Speaker, a robust NASA will pay immediate dividends by keeping our aerospace industrial base vibrant. By turning our children on to science, space, and technology, investments in NASA will pay off in the future as we nurture the next generation of rocket scientists. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report and to stand up for our Nation's space program. Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in regard to the VA-HUD appropriations bill and language in the conference report which may be construed to affect EPA's new Estrogenic Substances Screening Program. As one of the principal authors of the Estrogenic Substances Screening Program in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, I would like to convey the bipartisan understanding we had in the Health and Environment Subcommittee of how this provision will be implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Estrogenic Substances Screening Program enhances the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to fully develop information on the endocrine disrupting effects of certain substances. The program will be an important tool to protect the public against endocrine disrupting substances. The principal goal of the screening program is to determine which substances have endocrine effects. The screening program will determine whether certain substances have an effect in humans similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen--that is--whether certain substances are endocrine disruptors. The screening program must be developed not later than 2 years after enactment or August 2, 1998. The program must be implemented by August 2, 1999. These dates are nondiscretionary. The conference report of the VA-HUD appropriations bill contains language which could be read to delay this program until the National Academy of Sciences conducts yet another massive study to perform comprehensive and redundant research. Obviously, this report language has no authority to delay a statutory deadline. However, it is worth noting that the Commerce Committee had contemplated the release of a new National Academy of Sciences' report on this issue which is due out early next year. The Commerce Committee agreed to a 2-year timeline for development of the program so that this NAS study could be considered if it is released on schedule. It is my expectation that EPA will fully consider this report as well as any other relevant information in developing and implementing the screening program. Consideration of available scientific information is crucial given the important policy decisions which will be made on the basis of the screening program's test results. As the House Commerce Committee report states, ``The bill mandates EPA action `as is necessary to ensure the protection of public health' if the screening program finds a substance to have an endocrine effect on humans.''--Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, House Commerce Committee Report [Rept. 104-669 part 2 at p. 55]. In sum, the bipartisan agreement, enacted into law, is clear. The EPA has explicit statutory deadlines to meet. While conferees to the VA-HUD appropriations bill understandably wish to ensure a comprehensive study of the endocrine disruption issue is conducted, the conference report language does not and should not be construed to delay EPA's implementation of this important program.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute one of America's beloved former teachers and former mayors, James Armstrong of Torrance, CA. I call Mr. ``Mr. Mayor.'' I doubt anyone in Torrance would dispute that appellation. During his 6 years (1972-78) on the Torrance City Council and eight more as Mayor (1978-86), Jim oversaw Torrance's renaissance into a beautifical and modern city. Jim Armstrong is also an educator. He taught American Government at Torrance High from 1958 to 1986. Earlier in his career, he taught at Torrance Elementary School, where he was an inspiration to many generations of young people. Because of his influence, many of them have entered careers in which they too serve the community. Through the years and in retirement, Jim has remained active by serving in leadership roles with many non-profit community organizations including the Torrance Cultural Arts Foundation, the Torrance Education Foundation, the Torrance YWCA Advisory Board, the Foundation of California State University Dominquez Hills and the Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce. In 1981, the city's municipal theater was named the James Armstrong Theater. On September 21, the Torrance YWCA will be honoring Jim Armstrong as Man of the Year. I join with the YWCA and all the people of the South Bay by giving special recognition to our special friend.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant support of the conference report on H.R. 3675, the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 1997. I am very disappointed that funding for the Alameda Corridor, a key southern California project with national significance, was not included in this conference report. While the project was supported by Members on both sides of the aisle and was included in both the House- and Senate-passed bills, political gamesmanship during conference led to the removal of this vital project from this legislation. The Alameda Corridor rail consolidation project is crucial to southern California and the Nation and was recently designated as a high-priority corridor by the Federal Government. The project will bolster our economy by facilitating the movement of goods through the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to American and international consumers. By the year 2010, the Alameda Corridor is expected to create an estimated 700,000 new jobs locally and nearly 6 million nationwide. This project should have been included in the conference report under consideration today. I am working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that this project is funded this year. While I am disappointed that Alameda Corridor funding was removed from the conference report, I am pleased to see that the legislation provides nearly $10 million for another key southern California transportation project--the advanced technology transit bus. Also known as the Stealth bus because it is constructed with the same graphite composite material used on Stealth bombers, the ATTB demonstrates how defense and aerospace technologies can be put to use in cutting-edge advanced transportation applications. Additionally, I am glad that the conference report contains over $72 million for funding for security at our Nation's airports and am especially pleased that the conferees added nearly $1 million in additional security funds to the administration's request. Recent air tragedies in Florida and off Long Island have graphically underscored the need to direct more Federal attention to increasing aviation security. Enhanced aviation security is particularly important to my congressional district, which is home to the world's third busiest airport, LAX. Congress, the administration, airport operators, and airlines must all work together to battle this growing threat to our national security. In conclusion Mr. Speaker, while this conference report is not perfect, I urge my colleagues to support it today.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate El Camino Community College on the event of its golden anniversary. For 50 years El Camino College has served the communities of El Segundo, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lennox, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance. Fully accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, El Camino offers a high quality of education in many diverse subjects, with an outstanding faculty of more than 800 full-time and part-time instructors. Currently 2,500 different classes are offered in 850 different programs to an enrollment of 23,000 students. Approximately 1.5 million students have been served since 1946. El Camino College is one of the educational and cultural centers of the South Bay. The great facilities of the campus draw thousands of visitors every year. I offer my congratulations to the college board of trustees, college President Thomas Fallo, and to the more than 1 million students who have attended El Camino during the last 50 years. And I know El Camino College will continue for the next 50 years to be an important educational institution in the South Bay.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, few at 80 can sail a large boat, take professional-caliber photographs, work out at the gym for 2-hour stints several times a week, help to build new entrepreneurial ventures, and new buildings for UCLA's International Student Center. Stan Dashew can. In the close to 40 years I've known him--half his life and most of mine--he has never disappointed. Always creative. Always caring. Always ready to make the most of his day. He brought enormous happiness to his late wife, Rita, an extraordinary woman whom I called my godmother. When Rita died suddenly, Stan's obituary in the Los Angeles Times describing their last evening together was as moving a testament about a marriage as could ever be written. Since Rita's death, Stan has moved on with life--as creative and caring as ever. He remains a devoted father, stepfather, and grandfather, and now a happy partner to Elizabeth. No past-tense is necessary. Stan is living the American dream. The son of immigrants who grew up during the Depression, he built Dashew Business Machines into a major producer of magnetic entry cards, bank credit cards, transmit systems, offshore mooring buoys, and more recently, unique bow thrusters for ships. Many years ago he sailed to California from Michigan with his young family. No doubt he will set out on new voyages in the future. Happy Birthday Stan.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as a product of K-through-12 public schooling in Los Angeles, I can testify it works. It certainly did for me. But virtually every school in the Los Angeles Unified School System-- including those I attended--could work better. And they must, if every kid is to get every chance to succeed. An extraordinary public school administrator who transformed Lennox schools into safe, attractive, graffiti-free havens for some of Los Angeles County's poorest children has just retired. I would like to share with my colleagues an excellent article about a visionary educator and friend, Ken Moffett, whose leadership will be sorely missed: [From the Daily Breeze, July 28, 1996] To Sir, With Love--Lennox Schools Say Goodbye to Superintendent (By Marie Montgomery) The Ken Moffett era in the Lennox School District is drawing to a close this week. Not too many school superintendents quality to have an era named after them. Then again, not too many have a school named after them while they're still alive, and it's unusual to find one who has worked in the same district for almost 20 years. Moffett, 61, has done all that and more since coming to Lennox in 1976. On Wednesday night, the Manhattan Beach resident will walk out the door of his district headquarters and leave his superintendent title behind him. He is retiring to become an education professor at Pepperdine University this fall. He'll also head the university's administrative training program. Bruce McDaniel, the district's assistant superintendent for business who has worked with Moffett for more than 10 years,will take over the Lennox superintendent post this week. ``I wanted to leave on a positive note, and I'm doing that,'' Moffett said, ``I'd like to leave without people's hands pushing in the middle of my back.'' That was hardly likely given that Moffett was named National Superintendent of the Year in 1994. But retiring now gives him a chance to pursue a second career in academia--one which may help create many more ``Moffett trainees'' to go out and run California's schools. ``Ken, for us exemplifies the outstanding qualities needed by a leader to take schools into the 21st century. . . . We're very fortunate to get him,'' said Terrence Cannings, associate dean for education at Pepperdine. ``He brings such a wealth of experience to anyone in today's tumultuous educational environment, and he has the ability to communicate that background to prospective teachers and administrators.'' Among Moffett's accomplishments at Lennox: He transformed district campuses into safe, attractive, graffiti-free havens for some of Los Angeles County's poorest children. He helped convince the state in 1985 to give his district $8.2 million to buy Lennox High School from the Centinela Valley Union High School District, refurbish it for $2.7 million provided by the state, and convert it to Lennox Middle School. He fought state and federal governments in the 1970s and 1980s for the right to build a new elementary school on land the district owned directly in the flight path of Los Angeles International Airport, and then got the state to kick in money to build the school underground and soundproof it. Kenneth Moffett Elementary School opened in 1990. The same year he won the national superintendent's title--a first for a California superintendent--he also was given the Marcus Foster Award, named for the Oakland schools chief assassinated by the Symbionese Liberation Army. Lennox School District was one of the first in the South Bay to join the computer revolution, with the district schools already wired for classroom use of the Internet. Teacher salaries in Lennox are the highest in the county, so the district can attract and keep qualified employees. Glowing accolades are about all anyone will hear about Moffett. His employees praise his enthusiasm and hard work. Colleagues in other South Bay districts stand in awe of his ability to communicate with everyone in the Lennox community, even gang members. And the direct beneficiaries of his work-- Lennox students--know their superintendent by name a rarity in most other districts. ``He's Mr. Lennox to me,'' said school board member Mary Davis who has worked with Moffett for 10 years. ``Before I got on the board, I said to myself, `Who is this man? They think of him like God.' Then when I got to know him, I realized he can talk to anybody and associate wit anybody. Children come first for him. I can't say anything bad about this man.'' El Segundo Unified School District Superintendent Bill Manahan said Moffett has always been generous with a sympathetic ear and advice for other administrators. ``If there is anyone I could emulate, it would be Ken Moffett.'' Manahan said. ``He just has such a sense of love for the community, for the kids. It goes beyond the kids--he cares about the families, too.'' Moffett made a point of visiting every classroom in his district, every year. He expected all his teachers and administrators to help give extra treats and incentives to students such as trips to a Dodgers game or a restaurant, and he pitched in with those duties too. About the only time in Moffett's superintendent career that wasn't rosy was when he resigned briefly in 1986 to take the top job at the ABC Unified School District in east Los Angeles County. He had a frustrating 15 months, caught in the middle of district politics. When he decided to apply to return to Lennox because the school board still hadn't filled his old post, he was criticized by some for missing the application deadline and getting rehire anyway. But Hector Carrio, a board member who initially voted against rehiring Moffett, is now one of his big fans. ``I feel he is one of the most outstanding human beings,'' said Carrio, who worked with Moffett in 1970 at Monroe Junior High School in Inglewood when Moffett was a principal and Carrio was a teacher. ``Under his leadership, we have only one concern--the students. It's our main concern and the rest doesn't count for us.'' Moffett came to Inglewood from Western Washington State College in 1957, originally intending to teach for one year and then attend law school. He never made it. After teaching English and physical education at Crozier Junior High School and working at a school for children of the U.S. military in Germany, he became an Inglewood administrator and then was hired by Lennox. Situated in one of the poorest inner-city areas in California, the Lennox district houses 6,000 mainly Latino students. The vast majority speak a language other than English at home. But the district is renowned because of its success in creating English-fluent students. ``The thing I'm most proud of is that we created an attitude that all kids could learn, that they all could get along,'' Moffett said. ``We created a model where we showed it could happen.'' Moffett now hopes to spend more time with his wife, who teaches in Torrance, and with his two grown children--one at West Point and the other in Idaho, training in the ``family business'' to become a teacher. And he wants to take a few more vacations and travel-- although his idea of a relaxing vacation is building a redwood deck on his cabin in the mountains. ``I like to be busy, and I'm going to stay busy,'' he said. ``But I won't be gone for home six nights a week.''

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of moderation and bipartisan cooperation and in strong support of the Health Coverage Availability conference report. After months and months of gridlock, we finally have before us a solid health care compromise. This legislation shows what is possible if we put partisanship behind us and work from the sensible center for the betterment of our country. Over the last decade, thousands of high-skill, high-wage workers in California's South Bay have lost their jobs because of defense downsizing. While many successfully found new employment, some cannot obtain medical insurance for themselves and their families because of preexisting health conditions. This bill generally prohibits insurers from excluding coverage of preexisting conditions and ensures that individuals would not lose their health insurance coverage when they move from one job to another. The conference report's bipartisan character is particularly apparent in the section authorizing medical savings accounts. I'm pleased with the language establishing an MSA trial program. This way we can collect accurate evidence on how MAS's affect the quality and scope of health coverage for everyone. Mr. Speaker, if we govern together from the sensible center, we will be successful. If we resort to partisan bickering, we are doomed to failure. Americans want and deserve a Congress that works. This conference report is evidence that it can.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] for so many years of courtesy and professionalism. It is an honor to serve on the committee with him, and also say to everyone how much I will miss the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery]. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Defense authorization conference report which, though hardly perfect, moves us in the right direction. This House has made some tough votes in recent days--particularly on welfare reform. As the Wall Street Journal said yesterday, we are ending welfare as we know it and creating welfare as we don't know it. That is true of our national security as well. The cold war threat we knew has ended and a world we don't know has begun. This bill, nonetheless, takes some important steps. First, the bill makes critical investments in key weapons and technology programs that our Nation will need in order to meet the expected war-fighting requirements of the next century. The dangers posed by a new range of regional threats and technologies are growing. As we reduce forward-basing, we need weapons with which we can project force quickly and decisively--weapons which can deter aggression before we are required to deploy personnel and equipment. This bill includes funds for such weapons, like the B-1 and B-2 upgrades, the F/A-18 and the C-17. It also includes research funds for a robust national and theater ballistic missile defense system as well as technologies aimed at counter-proliferation and antiterrorism. Many of these investments will, in the long term, also save money by reducing the ever increasing operation and maintenance costs of weapons systems that have been in use well past their designed life span. Second, the bill includes an initiative which I helped author to re- organize the function and fund the development of cost-shared dual use technology--thus protecting our industrial base and reducing costs by developing products, technology, and processes that meet both defense and commercial needs. As my colleagues know, we can not afford maintaining an industrial base that only meets unique military requirements. We need to diversify that base and not only apply defense technologies to commercial use but, more importantly, use commercial technologies and products to meet defense needs. The dual-use technology provision in the bill will help achieve this important goal. There are also missed opportunities. I strongly supported changing the 60-40 rule relating to military depots, in order to permit more private sector work at competitive rates. That opportunity was lost and, as a result, we are burdened for another year by costs that could have been directed to more critical needs, whether military, domestic, or deficit reduction. Another opportunity will present itself next year and I hope my colleagues will seize it. We also need to aggressively reduce administrative overhead at the Pentagon. This bill takes some steps in that direction, but last year's mandate that the defense workforce be reduced has not been implemented. The bill before us again directs the department to implement these cuts. The bill also begins the process of streamlining, consolidating, and downsizing the inefficient headquarters organizations of the military departments. We must do more to cut costs. We must privatize more non-core defense activities, accelerate procurement reforms, and rely on more dual use technologies, products, and processes. But cutting is not enough: rethinking our roles and missions for the digital battlefield of the 21st century is imperative. I anticipate that we will reduce forward positioning and manpower requirements while making increased investments in intelligence gathering, deep strike capability, and new systems and technologies that increase lethality, reduce response time, and protect and enhance the survivability of our forces. But we need to review and reassess our defense assumptions in a place and time when partisanship and election sound-bites are absent. Hopefully, that work can begin soon after the election is over. I urge support for this conference report. It is not perfect, but it makes an important contribution to the difficult national security choices we face in the years ahead.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, during rollcall 356, I voted from the well instead of by electronic voting card. In doing so, I mistakenly picked up and signed an orange card, instead of a red card. As a result, I am recorded as having voted ``present,'' although I intended to vote ``no'' on the Rohrabacher amendment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for campaign finance reform and my disappointment that, once again, partisanship has colored this debate--to the disadvantage of the American people and our political system. It's a shame that campaign finance reform--reform supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people--is being portrayed today as a partisan fight. In fact, campaign finance reform is not partisan--and if the process by which we are considering amendments had been open, we could have proved it. Unfortunately, we are prevented from offering amendments, prevented from considering the Smith-Meehan-Shays bill, and prevented from making improvements to both of the alternatives brought before us. Mr. Chairman, in my view, limiting campaign expenditures is not partisan. Limiting the influence of special interests, limiting a candidate's ability to self-finance a campaign, and limiting soft money are not partisan positions. They are sensible improvements designed to restore credibility and integrity to our campaign financing system. Yet we are forced to choose between two competing bills in an environment highly charged by partisanship and acrimony. Once again, the leadership's efforts to drive wedges between the Members of this body will prevent us from securing the best result for the American people and for the American political process. While I want to commend Bill Thomas for including in the House leadership bill several significant reforms, specifically the aggregate contribution limit on individuals, PAC's and parties, the Thomas bill is far too timid of the choices available. I choose the Farr substitute. Though not perfect, the Farr substitute contains far more of the kinds of reforms that I think are necessary. The Farr substitute establishes an overall voluntary spending limit of $600,000 on congressional campaigns. In exchange for adhering to voluntary limits, it provides candidates with discounted broadcast and mail rates. The substitute limits contributions from PAC's and eliminates leadership PAC's altogether. It also limits the amount large donors can contribute. And, most important, it limits the amount individuals can contribute or loan to their own campaigns. In contrast, the Thomas bill only takes off restrictions if an individual self-finances above a certain dollar threshold. Another important reform which the Farr substitute makes is a clear definition of what constitutes an independent expenditure. It is my hope that the Farr substitute will marshal majority support in this Chamber. If it does not, public cynicism about Congress and the electoral process are likely to increase. Mr. Chairman, we need reform. And if afforded the opportunity to consider in an open fashion the reform proposals made by some of our colleagues, including the proposal put forward by the gentlelady from Washington [Mrs. Smith] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan], I think we could have found a bipartisan consensus for a strong congressional campaign finance reform measure. Under this rule, we'll never know for sure. And, as a result, campaign finance reform will continue to be used as a partisan sledgehammer instead of a tool to restore integrity and credibility to our current campaign finance system.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3814, the Commerce/Justice/State appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. The bill is tough on crime and the funding it provides will help us in the effort to gain control of our borders. Since I first took office, my constituents have stressed to me time and again what a high priority they place on public safety and crime prevention. I am pleased to see that this bill provides $1.4 billion-- equal to last year's spending--on the successful Community Policing block grants. This means that we will continue to put thousands of new local law enforcement officers on the beat in our cities. I would also like to commend the chairman of the subcommittee for fully funding National Institute of Justice programs like the regional Law & Technology Centers. These centers, which identify defense technologies suitable for use by law enforcement, have already produced notable results. The Western Regional center, located in El Segundo, CA, is currently helping develop image enhancement technology which has already been used to solve the murder of a police officer in my district. Additionally, I am pleased that the bill funds key technology programs at the Department of Commerce including the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and the Advanced Technology Program. Both of these initiatives are examples of how government and industry can form partnerships to stimulate our Nation's research and development base. Nowhere is this partnership more evident than at the California Manufacturing and Technology Center in Southern California's South Bay--where last year, 51 small manufacturers hired 442 additional employees after implementing improvements recommended by the CMTC. Furthermore, the bill provides an increase of $457 million for agencies enforcing our immigration laws, paying for 1,000 new border patrol agents and 2700 additional detention beds. It also provides $500 million in sorely needed reimbursement to the States for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens. As originally reported, the bill needed some changes; most notably, restoration of funding to the Legal Services Corporation. As a young lawyer in the late 1960's and early 1970's, I witnessed the birth of the Legal Services Corporation and participated in its struggle for adequate funding. The LSC has been a lifeline for the thousands over the years, helping poor Americans defend themselves against wrongful evictions, wrongful denial of Social Security benefits, and wrongful denial of parental rights. It has also helped victims of domestic violence--in fact, one out of every three cases handled by LSC concerns family law matters including abusive spouses, and neglected and abused juveniles. LSC has already been cut by over \1/3\. The additional massive cuts in the bill as reported were unnecessary and hurtful. I am pleased to note that the Mollohan amendment that the House has just passed restored $109 million in funding to the LSC. Mr. Chairman, on the whole this is a good bill. It is tough on crime and illegal immigration, and provides much needed resources to our law enforcement authorities. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to join this very polite and bipartisan debate in favor of more technology spent on law enforcement, in this case specifically to fight terrorism. I would commend the bill's sponsor for the plus-up in NIJ technology programs. I think that moves us in the right direction. I would point out to my colleagues that the NIJ now commits substantial funding to something that is very important: making defense technology available for law enforcement purposes. It has probably occurred to the sponsors of this bipartisan compromise amendment that there is much to learn from the defense sector that might impact positively on our fight against urban terrorism. That is why numbers of us on the Committee on National Security joined together to introduce legislation that is partially addressed by an amendment earlier today offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and partially addressed by this amendment. Let me say that the gentleman from New York just talked about the disparity between funds spent on defense R&D, approximately $35 billion, with a B, versus funds spent on efforts for R&D in the law enforcement sector, which he pointed out are in the millions of dollars. I hope that we will share more of that $35 billion in defense R&D money, which I fully support, with the law enforcement effort and would point out that many of the things that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] listed as possible derivatives of the expenditure of law enforcement R&D moneys, may be effectively provided for by technologies developed in the defense sector.