Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Hear, hear. Reclaiming my time, I would say that I applaud what he said and point out to my colleagues that we have established over the past few years law technology centers around the country. There are five of them. One of them is in New York. Another of them is in southern California located in El Segundo, CA, in my district. What these centers do is to canvas what defense technologies are available and then figure out whether there are law enforcement applications that would be useful and help generate a market for the development of those technologies for law enforcement. I have been calling this a win-win-win. It is a win for the defense sector, which has new markets to sell into. It is a win for law enforcement, which has much better tools. And it is a win for the public, which is much safer. So I think this compromise, bipartisan amendment puts us $10 million closer to better solutions. Maybe it is also a small gesture to the families of those who tragically lost their lives on the TWA plane to Paris, those lives may not have been lost in vain. This Congress appreciates the magnitude of the loss, and we are working as hard as we can to prevent another one.

Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, for some time it has been clear to me that America can no longer afford to maintain two separate industrial bases--one for defense and another for commercial products. The cost and inefficiencies are too great, and we are finally beginning to learn that each sector can leverage the advances of the other. The key to leveraging is dual-use partnerships, which have been at the core of several small Federal research programs like the Advanced Technology Program, the Technology Reinvestment Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership--each of which has been targeted for reduced funding, if not elimination, in this Congress. Recently, Joel Kotkin contributed an article to the Los Angeles Times noting how recent trends in dual-use research are restoring strength and vibrancy to the economy of southern California. Several of the examples are the result of changing policies and procurement patterns in the U.S. military. More importantly, all are examples of how businesses in southern California are taking advantage of the rich defense industry heritage and the continuing high quality of workers-- an example that may be a model for other parts of the country. I commend the article to my colleagues: [From the Los Angeles Times, July 7, 1996] The ``Silver'' Age of State's Defense-Aerospace Economy (By Joel Kotkin) The end of the Cold War seemed to mark the demise of Southern California's defense and aerospace-driven ``golden age,'' throwing the state into its worst recession in decades. But the region's heritage as the world leader in military and space technology is now poised to boost its burgeoning information age economy. Indeed, the announcement on Tuesday that Lockheed-Martin will build the new X-33 reusable spacecraft at its Palmdale facility, creating about 2,000 new jobs, fits into a wider picture of a restored Southland aerospace and defense industry. Between the late 1980s and last year, roughly 55%, or 175,000, California aerospace-related workers lost their jobs. This year, despite widespread predictions of 20,000 additional layoffs, the industry seems to have stabilized; economist Stephen Levy sees the once-reeling sector creating net new jobs through 1998. Nowhere will this reversal of fortune be more positively felt than in the Los Angeles area--where 80% of all the state's aerospace job losses occurred, including 50,000 in 1993 alone. Even as the two other pegs of the local economy-- the ``creative industries'' and international trade--have grown robustly, the depth of the defense-aerospace downturn seriously slowed growth in the critical high-technology sector. The recent recovery in aerospace and defense electronics is critical because it has the potential to restore the region's once-strong reputation as a center for technology development. During the economic free-fall of the early 1990s, Southern California was viewed nationally--and often viewed itself--as a technological laggard behind such areas as the Bay Area, Seattle and even Utah. This image of Southern California as little more than a ``tinsel town'' surrounded by Third World misery hurt the recruitment and promotional efforts of technology-related companies in such disparate fields as computer software and multimedia. But today, with the resurgence in high-tech aerospace and defense electronics, Southern California's position as a leading edge economic region is being restored. Los Angeles County now has an annual job growth rate equal to Seattle and higher than San Francisco--both widely regarded as boomtowns. For the first time in years, L.A. County's employment engine is running hotter than that in suburban Orange County and the Inland Empire. The improving defense-aerospace picture stems, in part, from changing federal procurement patterns, growing diversification into commercial fields by local defense companies and increased aircraft sales. Perhaps most important, the turn-around reflects a new emphasis in the U.S. military: away from large-scale weapons systems and toward information technologies. This shift represent, in the words of one analyst at the Army War College, ``a revolution in military affairs.'' The military's new direction has played directly to Southern California's strength in defense electronics. It is increasingly clear that the Persian Gulf War, with its reliance on satellites and ``smart'' weapons, represented only the first phase of a continuing ``digitalization'' of military systems--encompassing sophisticated battlefield communications systems, satellites and anti-missile technology. Engineers and scientists at TRW, for example, are working on a series of advanced systems for the army's elite Force XXI, which is expected to become the model for the new, ``digitized'' army. Among the projects being worked on at TRW, most of whose defense operations are in the South Bay, are a new system of computer communications devices for mechanized forces; a special high-frequency identification system designed to prevent ``friendly fire'' accidents, and laser technologies designed to shoot down incoming missiles from terrorists. As a result, TRW--a firm that cut roughly 9,000 jobs during the early 1990s--added more than 1,200 last year, largely high-skilled, well-paid workers. And it is planning to add another 1,300 this year. The decision to grow in Southern California is due largely to the region's work force--which leads the nation in mathematicians, engineers and skilled technologists. As an overall scientific research center, the Southern California region ranks third nationally, behind only San Francisco and Boston. ``We chose to stay where are--and we have asked the question--because fundamentally the No. 1 driver is the pool of technical talent.'' explains Fred Brown, TRW group vice president for Space and Electronics. More than half of his division's recent hires, he estimates, come from local colleges and universities. Much the same process can be seen at other key defense firms in Southern California. Rockwell recently added 400 new jobs at its Anaheim Autonetics and Missile Systems plant and Hughes Electronics is expected to add another thousand workers this year. Although this is not the en masse hiring of factory workers that occurred in the 1980s and earlier, it signals a marked improvement in market conditions for the region's scientific, engineering and technical talent. Contributing much to the improving prospect has been the ability of defense firms, both large and small, to shift technologies into commercial markets. In contrast to the heavily hyped but relatively ineffective government ``conversion'' programs, such as the Calstart electric car effort, Los Angeles' real defense restructuring has been a classically capitalist ``creative destruction''--with the associated dose of pain. Take TRW's gallium arsenide technology, developed for military use in satellite and communications systems. It now has large new markets in such commercial areas as cellular phones, leading TRW to consider keeping its Redondo Beach foundry on 24-hour shifts to meet both commercial and military demand. Similarly, Hughes, based in El Segundo, has focused on its satellite technology and its successful Direct TV enterprise, turning the defense firm into something of a telecommunications superpower. Defense has dropped from nearly two-thirds of the company's from nearly two-thirds of the company's revenues in the late 1980s to roughly 40%. Rockwell, another aerospace powerhouse, has cut its dependence on defense spending over the past decade from 50% to 15%. High-tech electronics now account for the largest share of company revenues. An equally dramatic conversion has taken place among a plethora of smaller technology companies. Nurtured by research monies from the military or NASA, these firms are now shifting into commercial markets. Particularly promising are a group of companies now using military-derived simulation and image processing technology to enter such growth fields as special effects and educational software. Raj Dutt, President of R&D Laboratories in Culver City, has spent a decade creating advanced satellite systems for the military. Now the same technology can also be used to carry heavy data loads, something of increasing interest to telecommunications and entertainment firms. Dutt, who expects to boost his nondefense share of business from 10% to nearly half over the next two years, suggests the biggest problem for companies like his may be ``cultural.'' Essentially, defense firms, large and small, must move away from their ultra-metriculous, 8-to-4 culture, to the more fast-paced environment characteristic of the commercial sector. ``We have to learn how to compete in the real world,'' says Dutt, a Caltech-trained physicist. Yet, like RDL, many smaller defense firms find confronting reality not only necessary, but profitable. Perceptronics, based in Woodland Hills, is now using its warfare-honed simulation system for such things as electronic training systems for commercial trucking companies. Illusion Inc., a small contractor in Westlake Village, is now taking ``virtual reality'' technology, developed for designing aircraft and military training exercises, into such diverse venues as museums and movie special effects. In each of the past three years, Illusion Inc. has doubled its revenues and expects to expand to 50 employees by 1997, up from its current 20. ``The future for companies like ours,'' said Peter Beale, Illusion Inc.'s chairman, ``is to combine the creative vision of Hollywood with the engineering vision of the defense industry.'' Such new uses for military technology and talents could also prove critical in providing the Southland economy with an important new source of high-wage jobs that lessen its current dependence on the volatile film industry or the always uncertain course of foreign trade. As Southern California begins to harvest the overlooked fruits of its rich defense industry heritage, it may enjoy the broad, diversified economic recovery that many thought could never happen here again.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his leadership in this important subject. Madam Chairman, the Castle-Tanner bipartisan welfare reform bill is smart, fair, and comprehensive. It gives States both flexibility and the resources necessary for welfare-to-work programs, even in times of economic downturns. It is also fair to children whose parents are denied cash benefits. I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to support it. But if the House will not endorse this plan, in my view we cannot delay any longer enacting welfare reform. I have twice before voted against proposals which went too far and hurt children. I have many concerns about the underlying welfare reform plan. I would like to see Congress increase resources for moving people into the work force, less dramatic cuts in the eligibility of legal immigrants for some programs, and vouchers for children whose parents are ineligible for cash benefits. But the underlying bill includes significant improvements over the bills the President vetoed. It provides an additional $4 billion for child care, removes the earlier bill's spending caps on food stamps, and increases the minimum required spending by States to 80 percent of fiscal 1994 levels. I also believe the Senate will continue to improve the bill. Madam Chairman, we must act now to move welfare reform forward. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Castle-Tanner amendment and to support final passage of welfare reform today.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the Hoyer amendment to strike the language that prohibits Federal employees from choosing health care plans that include abortion services. Let's be perfectly clear: the issue here is not Federal funding for abortions. It's about this Congress forcing its social agenda on the American people, and in this case a specific group of individuals: Federal workers. What's at stake here is the right of Federal employees to use their own money, compensation they have earned, to purchase the health plan of their choice. Congress has no business obstructing private insurance companies from offering services that are necessary for women's health. At least two-thirds of private health insurance plans currently include coverage for abortions. Those private sector employees who object to abortion have the freedom to purchase plans that do not cover such procedures. Federal employees should have the same right to make these personal decisions, and until Congress imposed this policy last year, they did. Mr. Chairman, this unreasonable restriction of the rights of Federal employees is just one more example of this Congress' fixation on divisive social issues. There are a host of real problems facing America today, from the threat of terrorism to the deteriorating quality of our public schools, which Congress can and should address immediately. Instead, we have met time and again to clash over the right of women to obtain legal abortions with their own funds. Mr. Chairman, this mother of four urges strong support for the Hoyer amendment to restore the freedom of Federal workers to purchase the health care policy of their choice. Let's shift the focus away from divisive social issues and onto the real problems facing our Nation.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I realize that my views are likely to be in the minority, as well as unpopular, but this is not the first time I have come to the well to stand up for what I believe in, and it will not be the last. Mr. Chairman, our Nation faces many pressing and critical problems: The size of the Federal deficit and its effect on our international competitiveness; threats from rogue nations and terrorists armed with chemical, biological, and small nuclear weapons; a deteriorating public infrastructure; the decline in the quality of public education, to name just a few. Yet, this body is embarked today on an extended debate of a nonproblem, an issue which the States themselves are fully capable of handling without the interjection of the views of Congress. In fact, this issue already has been carefully considered by the legislatures, the legislatures of 34 States. Today, we debate legislation of questionable constitutionality, legislation in which we ``authorize'' the States to ignore the dictates of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Yet what is clear from the sparse history on the full faith and credit clause is that whatever powers the States have to have to reject the decision by another State are directly derived from the Constitution. Nothing Congress can do by statute either adds to or detracts from that power. Congress cannot grant a power to the States which, under the Constitution, the Congress itself does not have or control. In addition, Mr. Chairman, today, we debate legislation designed to divide and ostracize individuals and to advance or protect interests which are hardly threatened. As some of my colleagues have already said, what is by far the weakest part of this bill is its title. But that is not accidental. This bill reflects a calculated political judgment that wedge issues can be used to paint individuals in our society, as well as Members of this Chamber. This bill's accelerated consideration in this House was, unfortunately, part of that political agenda. Whatever Hawaii finally decides will be years off, so what is the rush? This is a sad day when partisan political considerations once again upstage careful deliberations designed to address the Nation's important challenges. I urge my colleagues to stand up and reject this divisive, untimely, and possibly unconstitutional bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as a mother of four, including a young adult daughter and a preteen daughter, I want my children to seek my advice if not my approval on health-related matters, particularly those related to reproductive issues. But their willingness to talk to me and their father is based on trust and respect and cannot be mandated by requiring parental consent. The Istook amendment nullifies the statutes in the 49 States that allow teens to consent for screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. It also nullifies the law in 23 States which explicitly allows teens to consent for family planning services. This amendment undercuts any pretense of this body in assuring the primacy of States' rights. Mr. Chairman, the Istook amendment jeopardizes health, does nothing to bring parent and child together, and imposes Washington one-size-fits-all views on policies and procedures already decided by a majority of the States. This is a tough vote, but it is clear to this mother that the right vote is in opposition to the Istook amendment and in support of the Obey substitute, which goes farther in encouraging parental involvement in important health and reproductive questions of our children.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of this amendment and I commend my colleagues from Michigan, Mr. Smith, and Indiana, Mr. Roemer, for offering it. Mr. Chairman, as a result of streamlining and working more efficiently, I returned $100,000 from my 1995 office budget back to the Treasury Department for reducing the deficit. Combined with similar cost savings in 1993 and 1994, I have returned a total of $500,000. I am very proud of this record. However, without the language of this amendment again added to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, the tax dollars I and other Members save from the efficient operation of our offices could not be returned to the Treasury. Instead those savings would be reallocated to other spending priorities. Thus, I was pleased to have been a cosponsor of last year's successful amendment to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, and I am pleased to join again this year. Mr. Chairman, we need to send a message to the American public that Congress is working more efficiently and with greater accountability. And just as we ask other agencies of Government, Congress needs to reduce spending and make its contribution to reducing the deficit. Vote for the Smith-Roemer-Harman-Zimmer-Klug-Goss-Browder-Minge and Camp amendment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3604, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. This bill is supported by environmentalists, industry, State and local governments, and consumer advocates. This bill is proof that Congress can pass strong environmental legislation if it works together on a bipartisan basis. In my view, keeping our water clean is one of our Nation's most pressing environmental concerns. A strong Clean Water Act is necessary to keep our oceans, lakes, and rivers clean for all to enjoy. Similarly, a strong Safe Drinking Water Act is essential to keep harmful pollutants out of our drinking water, which is literally our lifeblood. This legislation will do just that. The bill, for the first time, authorizes $7.6 billion for the State drinking water revolving loan fund, which is used by our communities to build and improve drinking water treatment facilities. Equally as important, the legislation guarantees that Americans will be informed of exactly which pollutants are in their drinking water. My State of California already has a successful right-to-know statute--I'm glad that the rest of the Nation has again followed our lead. This legislation also proves that there is an effective way to balance environmental protection with economic concerns. The bill reforms rigid regulations by providing EPA with more flexibility in setting standards for drinking water contaminants. I'm pleased that the bill will allow EPA to consider costs and benefits in establishing standards for new contaminants. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a reasonable, responsible approach to environmental protection. It is evidence of how successful we can be if we put partisanship behind us.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3675, the Transportation Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. I would like to commend Chairman Frank Wolf and his entire subcommittee colleagues for their bipartisan work on this legislation. I am particularly pleased that the bill funds the Alamenda Corridor project in Southern California. The Alameda Corridor will facilitate the nationwide movement of goods from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which already account for 25 percent of all U.S. waterborne international trade. The bills $59 million appropriation will be used to finance a $400 Federal loan for the project. This Federal component will be leveraged against an additional $1.4 billion in non-Federal funds from the ports, local municipalities and railroad users. The Alameda Corridor is about the economy, not politics. Members from both sides of the aisle have fought hard for the program in the Democratically-led 103d Congress as well as in the Republican-led 104th. The administration has also made the Corridor a priority by including the project in the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request. The Alamenda Corridor is proof positive that we can make sound policy as long as we work together on a bipartisan basis. In addition to funding the Corridor, this bill provides much needed Federal support for the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. By funding the Metro Rail Red Line, the legislation helps ensure that Southern California residents will soon be able to break free of their cars in favor of dependable mass transit. By financing the Advanced Technology Transit Bus--also known as the ``Stealth Bus''--the bill guarantees that defense technology will play an important role in our Nation's developing advanced transportation industry. Mr. Chairman, investments in transportation are investments in our future. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation to do just that.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of continuing most- favored-nation trading status for China. Each year, the President of the United States must renew China's MFN status. And each year, some Members of Congress, motivated by a desire to punish China for bad behavior, attempt to block this renewal. Mr. Speaker, I too believe China must change. China must respect the human rights of its citizens, respect intellectual property rights, and respect the sovereignty of its neighbors. As a member of the National Security Committee, I am particularly concerned about China's role in contributing to nuclear and missile proliferation. But the sledgehammer approach of denying MFN to China is not the answer. In the first place, most favored nation is a misnomer: MFN simply indicates normal trade relations. Every country in the world except Afghanistan, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam enjoys MFN status. We even grant MFN to Iraq, Myanmar, and Libya. Putting the world's largest nation in the same category as a few rogue states is folly. Second, revoking MFN won't work, and is likely to backfire. Terminating MFN will be perceived by the Chinese as an entirely confrontational policy, negating the economic and diplomatic ties which allow us to influence their behavior. Removing MFN will devastate the American commercial presence in China, ending the exposure of the Chinese people to American values of democracy and freedom. Third, American jobs, including thousands in my district, depend on trade with China. California exported over $1.5 billion worth of goods to China last year. And jobs related to trade with China don't just come from exports. Imports provide jobs at airports and seaports; in my district, trade to and from China already represents over 13.7 percent of the Port of Los Angeles's business, and trade with China is growing rapidly. Denying MFN would sacrifice these jobs for the sake of a largely symbolic and ineffective policy. I have often remarked that the next century will be the Asian century as China, the world's largest underdeveloped economy, takes off. American companies need to gain footholds in this market early. Our foreign competitors are poised to take advantage if we retreat. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that MFN for China should be made permanent, so that we can end this annual ritual, and instead focus on more effective and positive ways to influence China's behavior. I urge my colleagues to look to the long term and reject this resolution.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do so on behalf of myself, my colleague from New York, Mr. Boehlert, in order to engage the gentleman from California, Mr. Lewis, chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, in a colloquy regarding NASA's Mission to Planet Earth.

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

Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York, and I commend him for his bipartisan leadership on issues such as this.

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

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those remarks, and as the chairman knows, I am particularly concerned about the near-term components of the Earth observing system, EOS, including the P.M.-1 and CHEM-1 missions. Does the chairman agree with the National Research Council that these near-term components should be implemented without delay?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friends for their comments.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as you know, Mission to Planet Earth is one of NASA's most important and relevant programs. It will benefit our environment by providing scientific information on global climate change. It will benefit our economy by providing farmers with a better understanding of how climatic conditions like El Nino can affect their crops. I understand the budget constraints under which the subcommittee must operate and commend the gentleman for the job he is doing within them, but I am very concerned by the proposed $220 million cut in this bill, especially in light of the National Research Council's recent review of the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program and NASA's Mission to Planet Earth, which stated that further budgetary cuts would hurt Mission to Planet Earth. Is the gentleman from California aware of this recommendation by the National Research Council and does he agree with it?

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Congress join me today in honoring a dedicated constituent of mine, Lu Ann DeRing. On June 21, Lu Ann will be honored at the Westchester/LAX Chamber of Commerce's annual installation dinner for her outstanding service as chamber president. Recognizing the need to help fight crime, during Lu Ann's presidency, the chamber helped raise $15 million for mayor Richard Riordan's alliance for a safer Los Angeles. This private sector contribution was essential to create the infrastructure for a Los Angeles Police Department computer network, a critical piece in updating badly outdated equipment. Lu Ann and the chamber also pressed hard to stimulate the local economy and under her watch, Dreamworks SKG announced plans to open a major studio in Playa Vista. Perhaps the metaphor for a renewed Westchester was the landing of the olympic torch at LAX to begin its nationwide journey to Atlanta and the 1996 summer games. Over the past year, Lu Ann helped arrange several high-visibility chamber meetings including the annual business recognition dinner which featured many noted entrepreneurs, including the chairman of the board of Southwest Airlines, Herb Kelleher. Lu Ann helped bring the chamber to the forefront of the greater Los Angeles community by securing several well known and respected individuals to address the Westchester Chamber this year including Los Angeles Police Chief Willie Williams. In addition to her tireless work as chamber president, Lu Ann's career has flourished, both as the international director of promotions for Herbalife and as the owner and founder of DeRing Marketing. Away from the workplace, Lu Ann looks forward to the time she spends with her husband, Robert, and her 9-year old son Jonathan. Mr. Speaker, Lu Ann DeRing is an inspiration to her family, friends, community, and all who have the pleasure of knowing her. Please join me in saluting a great individual, Lu Ann DeRing.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, because my flight from California was delayed yesterday, I was unable to be present to vote on several rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present'' on rollcall 225, approval of the journal. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 226, the motion to instruct House conferees to H.R. 3103, the bill to improve the portability and continuity of health insurance coverage. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 227, Mr. Frank's amendment to prohibit IMET funds for Indonesia. And I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 228, final passage of the foreign operations appropriations bill for fiscal 1997.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, last night I attended the 8th grade graduation of my son and I missed rollcall vote 214, the amendment by Mr. Visclosky to bar economic support funds to countries which block or interfere with the transportation of humanitarian aid passing through humanitarian aid corridors. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the amendment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I wish to salute Calle Mayor Middle School in Torrance, CA, on being selected for a Department of Education Blue Ribbon School Award. Calle Mayor Middle School was 1 of only 266 schools in the Nation recognized for outstanding achievement by the students, teachers, and staff, and an education environment of the highest quality. The Department of Education awarded Calle Mayor the highest rating in areas such as instructional leadership, curriculum, student environment, and parent and community support. Let me note that Calle Mayor's programs to introduce students to technology and computers will equip our next generation to fill the high-skill, high-wage jobs in an area I often refer to as the aerospace center of the universe. I congratulate Calle Mayor principal, Mary Lou Ryder, Torrance schools superintendent, Arnold Plank, and school board trustees, Dr. William Blischke, John Eubanks, Gary Kuwahara, Heidi Ashcraft, and Beth Wilson. And I especially congratulate the students and teachers of Calle Mayor for setting an excellent example for other schools to follow. I am proud that Calle Mayor is located in the 36th Congressional District of California.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, as we begin debate on the foreign operations bill, Israel's future is a central issue. As a strong supporter of the peace process, I watched the recent Israeli election with some trepidation. While the transition is not yet complete, I believe that Prime Minister-elect Benjamin Netanyahu deserves high marks for his centrist tone and his willingness to reach out to all elements of Israeli society and to leaders throughout the region. In this election, Israelis did not choose peace or security, they chose peace and security. His razor-thin election may be a source of unexpected strength for Netanyahu, justifying his reach beyond his base. While the extremes of Israel's political life try to exercise their power, the Prime Minister, for the first time elected independently, must recognize that governing on the fringe is a sure recipe for failure. He has already indicated that the most important ministries will be filled by Likud moderates. No Israeli has been untouched by the wars Israel has had to fight for its existence. Netanyahu lost his older brother, Yonatan, who led the daring and dramatic raid on Entebbe. And no one was untouched by the tragic assassination of Yitzahk Rabin. As a warrior who waged a fight for peace, Rabin's quest must not be abandoned. Bibi Netanyahu is assuming the post of Prime Minister at a crossroads for Israel. If this week is any indication, he is moving in the right direction.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely disappointed that a procedural maneuver may prevent a clean vote on the Tanner amendment, now called the Brown amendment, which I have enthusiastically cosponsored. Instead we will vote on a watered-down compromise, much less than we need. NIST technology programs never used to be political hot potatoes. Both the MEP and ATP were established, as we just heard, during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Both programs are embraced by Members on both sides of the aisle because they make our Nation's businesses more competitive worldwide. Both programs are visionary and prove that government can be an effective partner with industry on technology development. Mr. Chairman, let me just spend a few moments discussing the MEP and, in particular, California's Manufacturing Technology Center in Southern California's South Bay. Last year, 51 small manufacturers hired 442 additional employees after implementing improvements recommended by the CMTC. These same manufacturers saw their sales increase by a total of $5.8 million. Those are private-sector dollars, not taxpayer dollars. It is all the more intriguing to me why the Committee on Science majority has decided to turn the Federal Government's back on small manufacturers, which have accounted for the majority of manufacturing- sector job growth in the Nation during the last 25 years. Equally important to our Nation's high-tech development is the ATP, the Advanced Technology Program, a unique partnership between government and industry to accelerate the development of high-risk technologies. That promises significant commercial payoffs and widespread benefits for our economy. Industry drives the ATP by setting the program's research priorities. Industry must keep its part of the partnership by adhering to strict cost-sharing rules. We must keep up our end of the bargain by maintaining investment in high-technology industries. Mr. Chairman, we must drive technology forward into the 21st century. Government must be a partner with industry in this effort. This amendment is too little and very late.