Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Science, I rise today in strong support of the Brown substitute and against H.R. 3322. Over the shoulders of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] in the Committee on Science hearing room is a biblical quotation which reads, ``Where there is no vision, the people perish.'' In my view, H.R. 3322 is a bill without vision. Because of its shortsighted cuts to civilian R&D our Nation's leadership position on science and technology issues may very well perish in the not too distant future. The Brown substitute offers a much different vision of the Federal Government's role in research and development. It represents a vision that Government can and should be a partner with industry as we move into the 21st century. Its enactment is critical for our future. A key difference between the Brown substitute and H.R. 3322 is the treatment of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. This important program will provide us with a better scientific understanding of global change and directly stimulate American interests around the globe. As an example, Mission to Planet Earth-generated data will help scientists answer key questions about our planet's changing climate and will help farmers understand and predict El Nino positions, allowing them to plant their crops accordingly. Unlike the Brown substitute, which funds Mission to Planet Earth at the administration's requested level, H.R. 3322 dramatically slashes the program by $374 million in fiscal year 1997. This cut flies counter to the National Research Council's comprehensive review of the program, a review requested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] himself. The review was clear, the science underlying the Mission to Planet Earth Program is fundamentally sound. The PM-1 and CHEM-1 mission should be implemented without delay. Dr. Ed Frieman, who chaired the study, testified before the Committee on Science that postponing PM and CHEM would not only cause delay, but also would increase costs. At a March Committee on Science hearing on global climate change in the Mission to Planet Earth Program, not a single witness advocated canceling the PM and CHEM mission. No one urged the committee to chop $374 million from the program. Even renowned global warming skeptics agreed that more data on climate change was a necessity. Mr. Chairman, we need to be doing more, not less research into difficult scientific questions like climate change. Good science is good business. We must be visionary, not reactionary. I urge Members to support the Brown substitute, a strong vision for our Nation's science and technology future.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the House voted last night to repeal the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax. Repeal of the gas tax is precisely the wrong step to take as we try to move forward with the more important challenges of energy independence, national security, and fiscal responsibility--challenges which, over the last several years, we have made great strides toward meeting. First, it's clear that the tax is no more responsible for the recent price increases in gasoline than it was for the low gas prices we enjoyed in 1994 and 1995. The 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax has been in place for more than 2 years, but for political reasons, including helping a sagging Presidential campaign, it's only become a hot-button issue in the last several weeks. If we take oil companies at their word, the price spike is due to increased demand, a prolonged winter, and an unrealized expectation that Iraq would again sell oil to the world market. We talk about allowing the market economy to work without interference, but we immediately talk about interfering just when the market works as predicted. Worse still, we advocate a policy that has no direct bearing on the price at the pump. Indeed, what will political leaders say to consumers when prices continue to go up in spite of the gas tax repeal or when the 4.3 cents is not passed on at the pump. Second, Americans continue to enjoy gas prices at both historically low levels and at levels considerably lower than those paid by citizens of the other industrial nations. In inflation-adjusted terms, the price of gas is lower than it was 25 years ago, before the oil embargo. The low prices we've enjoyed have renewed some of the habits that made us so vulnerable during the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970's and the Persian Gulf war. In truth, both to reflect real world circumstances and for national security reasons, we need to change commuting and driving habits and our dependence on imported oil. Third, saving the average motorist, including myself, $30 a year--and there is great doubt that the price at the pump will go down as a result of the repeal--only makes our task of balancing the Federal budget that much more difficult. How do we balance the 8.2 cents a day returned to drivers against the $30 billion added to the deficit by repealing the tax. Just when we're beginning to make sustained progress on bringing down the deficit, just when we are within reach of actually balancing the budget in 6 years and making a serious and principled commitment to real fiscal responsibility, we're going to add $30 billion to the Nation's debt. Even without this added debt, we have to realize that we have many difficult budget choices still ahead. Where should we cut? Are the American people willing and ready to cut aid to education as Majority Leader Dick Armey suggested we should do--or cancer research, or public broadcasting, or Medicare? The proponents of repeal are eyeing as a possible offset for its cost reductions in the bank insurance funds. Heaven help us if we ever need to draw on those funds to pay depositors should we experience a banking crisis like the S&L debacle of only a decade ago. I guess we'll leave that problem for another day. The difficulty in finding a consensus behind a balanced budget plan will only be exacerbated by repealing the gas tax. Americans understand that. They also understand that cheap gas means dependence on uncertain foreign sources--sources that one day may again require our sons and daughters to fight to secure. And, most importantly, they understand that the 4.3 cent-a-gallon tax did not cause the recent price increase and that its repeal will not bring prices down. Repealing the tax is pandering and cynical. Let's not try to fool Americans into believing otherwise.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to salute Mira Costa High School, in the beautiful community of Manhattan Beach, on being selected for a Department of Education Blue Ribbon School Award. Mira Costa High 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 Mira Costa the highest rating in areas such as instructional leadership, curriculum, student environment, and parent and community support. I am particularly impressed with Mira Costa's emphasis on technology, which is the backbone of the South Bay's economy now and in the future. In areas such as the Integrated Learning Systems Wastch Lab, the MAC lab, the school library, and as a part of the ADTECH consortium, the students of Mira Costa are developing the technological skills necessary for the 21st century. I congratulate Mira Costa principal John Giovati, Manhattan schools superintendent Gerald Davis, and school board trustees Kathy Campbell, Barbara Dunsmoor, Michele Memmott, Leroy Nelson, and Mary Rogers. And I especially congratulate the students and teachers of Mira Costa for setting an excellent example for other schools to follow.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] for yielding this time to me. I am pleased once again to join in supporting the bipartisan coalition balanced budget proposal. In contrast to both the Gingrich and the President's budget proposals, cuts in this budget are balanced in each year and achieve a zero deficit without resorting to unsustainable program cuts in the outyears and an ill-timed tax cut paid for with borrowed money. The coalition proposal is a honest compromise between the other two major proposals, and it contains policy recommendations that strengthen and preserve Medicare and Medicaid as well as critical investments in education, technology, and the environment. I support tax cuts including a capital gains tax cut, but they should be enacted and paid for in the context of overall tax reform when we can also simplify the tax system. If we are serious about deficit reduction, let us put spending cuts first. Let us put a plan on the table that asks the 104th Congress to make the same kind of hard decisions that we will ask of the 105th and 106th Congresses. Vote for the coalition budget.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I would note that I have been a long-term supporter of these initiatives and will continue to be. I am pleased that the administration at this point has proposed its collaboration with Israel.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from New York, Mr. Solomon, to condition the expenditure of funds for the Nunn-Lugar program. Mr. Chairman, Nunn-Lugar protects American citizens from Russian missiles and nuclear warheads. Conditioning funds for this program on our ability to influence Russian leaders on specific policy goals, however admirable those goals are, is contrary to our own national interests. Nunn-Lugar has been a successful program. Designed to meet the complex challenges which followed the break-up of the Soviet Union, it assures that weapons of mass destruction, as well as the equipment, material, and services supporting them, are dismantled. Since 1992, over 3,800 nuclear warheads have been removed from deployment, and over 800 launchers have been eliminated. That's good for America. Because of Nunn-Lugar, Russia is ahead of schedule in meeting its obligations to reduce its number of warheads as set forth under the START agreement. That's good for America. Nunn-Lugar has helped convert at least 17 Russian industrial facilities previously dedicated to building weapons to civilian manufacturing. And it has redirected the work for more than 11,500 former Russian weapons scientists. As a result of this program, proliferation has been halted. Kazakstan is nuclear-free, with more than 600 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium removed to the United States. In the Ukraine, more than 460 nuclear warheads and 46 SS-19 silos have been deactivated because Nunn-Lugar provided the necessary heavy equipment to do so. In fact, both the Ukraine and Belarus are expected to become nuclear-free later this year. That, too, is good for America. I don't doubt my friend's sincerity in wanting to change Russian behavior on a wide range of critical issues affecting our security and that of Russia's neighbors. I agree with them. But I believe a more effective approach to achieving the goals outlined in my friend's amendment would be to engage the Russians directly--not to cut funds on a program whose greatest beneficiary is the United States. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. We need to remember that the greatest beneficiary of the Nunn-Lugar program is the United States, not Russia. To halt progress, even temporarily, on reducing the threat represented by the remaining Russian missiles and warheads is to put our citizens, American citizens, at risk. I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment offered by my friend from New York.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California, Ranking Member Dellums, for yielding me this time, and I would like to engage the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] on two subjects, dual-use technology and the Nautilus program, both of which are included in this bill, and to thank him for his leadership and bipartisanship. On the first subject, Mr. Chairman, we do not have the luxury any more of unlimited research and procurement funds in the defense budget, so saving money by using commercial products and technologies to solve military problems becomes more important than ever. Dual-use technology is an area of critical importance to us in the Congress as we work to get the most value for each tax dollar spent on defense. Working on a bipartisan basis, we have crafted an innovative dual-use technology provision in this bill, which includes cost sharing and will make program managers in each service sector look to the commercial marketplace first for solutions to their technology needs. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania to ensure this provision becomes law.

Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman.

Ms. HARMAN. I thank the chairman. Second, we have plussed up the ballistic missile defense piece of this defense bill, and I am fully supportive of that, but our program will not meet the threats for some years. There are immediate threats in some theaters around the world, one of which is Israel. I have been a strong supporter, as the gentleman knows, of our collaboration with Israel on various aspects of the ballistic missile defense budget. Just a few weeks ago the President and Prime Minister Peres signed a statement of intent providing that the Nautilus, which is a ground-based theater missile defense system, would be developed and deployed as soon as possible. I am disappointed that the administration has not included funding in this bill for the Nautilus program, but we in our subcommittee and then in the full committee included supportive language. I would like to talk to the chairman about this bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, [Ms. DeLauro] for her leadership on this issue and stand here once again in defense of a woman's right to choose. I have always been and continue to be a strong supporter of a strong national defense and I believe that, on balance, this bill contributes to achieving that goal. But I regret that in crafting it, the committee expended as much as half of its markup time and energies debating divisive social issues, access to abortions, the sale of adult publications and videotapes on military bases, and whether to discharge HIV-infected service personnel. I believe that the disproportionate amount of time debating these provisions distracted the committee from the central debate on how best to address, with the limited resources available, the serious defense needs our Nation faces as we approach the 21st century. I fear that the house is now embarked on a similar course. Mr. Chairman, women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many freedoms, forego privacy, and risk their lives to defend our country. They should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their careers, their health, and perhaps even their lives to a policy with no valid military purpose. Often times, local facilities are not equipped to handle a procedure or medical standards much worse than those in the United States. We are putting some of our own at risk. Even where safe abortions are available in the local economy, a servicewoman needs a leave from duty. The process of obtaining permission to seek nonmilitary medical care grossly violates normal boundaries of medical privacy. She must inform her immediate supervisor and others in the chain of command. A combination of military regulations and practical hurdles mean that a pregnant servicewoman who needs an abortion may face lengthy travel, serious delays, high expenses, substandard medical options, restricted information, compromised privacy, and career consequences. This constitutes an undue burden on the woman's right to choose. In Planned Parenthood versus Casey, judges used the term undue burden to analyze what kinds of Government restrictions on abortion improperly interfere with a woman's exercise of her right to choose. The judges defined undue burden as having the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. Casey, 505 U.S. at 877. Barring medical military facilities from these procedures definitely places a substantial obstacle in the way of the servicewoman. To unnecessarily jeopardize readiness in potentially hostile overseas engagements in order to return a servicewoman to the United States, or to force a woman who chooses to bravely serve her country and defend American interests to carry an unintended pregnancy to term, is irrational if not cruel. This is bad policy--and likely unconstitutional law--and ought to be repealed. Support the DeLauro amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as we have added funds to the Pentagon's budget, we have unfortunately neglected, until this year, changing the mindset of the military on how it makes purchasing decisions. Regardless of how much Congress provides, we must ensure that all of the dollars are spent wisely. As my colleagues know, I am a strong and vocal advocate for creating an industrial base that can meet both commercial and military requirements. It is clear that we cannot afford to maintain two distinct industrial bases--one for defense, one for commercial applications--as we have had the luxury of maintaining in the past. Instead, we must pursue policies and develop programs that encourage cooperative ventures in which defense and commercial expertise and technology complement and support each other. As such, I want to commend Mr. Weldon, chairman of the research and development subcommittee, and bring to my colleagues' attention section 203 of the bill. Section 203 creates an innovative and robust dual-use technology program. It does this by elevating within the Department of Defense an emphasis on integrating commercial technologies into current and future military systems. It devotes over the next 4 fiscal years increasing percentages of the DOD science and technology budget for dual use applications. And it encourages program managers to use these funds to develop and acquire technologies with both military and commercial applications, rather than purchasing more expensive milspec items. And it does this while sharing the costs of development with industry. I strongly believe that the dual use program authorized in the bill will make defense dollars stretch farther while sustaining critical components of our Nation's industrial base. I will fight for it in conference and trust Mr. Weldon will join me. Mr. Chairman, I also want to bring to my colleagues' attention another provision which I believe is widely supported by this body. As you know, on April 28, the Secretary of Defense and the Prime Minister of Israel entered into an agreement for the joint development of the Nautilus Laser/Theater High Energy Laser Program. This program will lead to the development of a ballistic-missile defense system for Israel--a goal which in itself will ensure continued stability and peace for the Middle East. Unfortunately, at the time of our subcommittee markup, the administration had still not forwarded its funding request nor identified offsets to pay the estimated $40 to $50 million U.S. share. As a result, the subcommittee included at my request, and with the full support of all members, a statement expressing strong congressional support for the Nautilus Program and encouraging the Secretary to send up a funding request. I am hopeful that by the time the House and Senate conference on the defense bill, we will be in a position to authorize the funds necessary to develop this critical missile defense program. I am pleased that committee also authorized funds to continue several badly-needed weapons programs. Ten C-17's, for example, were funded and the 6-year procurement of 80 aircraft approved. By buying the transport aircraft in this fashion, the taxpayers save nearly $1 billion. The committee also added $290 million to improve the conventional mission capability of the B-2 strategic bomber and $49 million for similar improvements to the B-1. Both recommendations deserve the support of this body. Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that there will be some changes and modifications to the bill in conference, including the repeal of the abortion language, the HIV-discharge requirement, other discriminatory provision affecting gays and lesbians, and the unconstitutional restrictions on the sale and rental of materials at military PXs. I would hope that a clean prodefense bill will pass this House this week, pass the Senate soon, be reported by a Senate-House conference and signed into law by the President. Our national security, our military, and our industrial base depend on it.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, due to a family obligation the evening of May 8, I was unable to cast my vote on two bills. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 148, final passage of H.R. 2974, enhancing penalties for crimes against the elderly and children. And I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 149, final passage of Megan's law.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as a kindergarten-through-high school graduate of the Los Angeles Unified School District, I am particularly proud to congratulate five LA Unified students from my district who recently won the prestigious National Science Bowl contest. Noah Bray-Ali, David Dickinson, Le My Hoang, Candice Kamachi, and Christopher Mayor, all students at Venice High School, claimed a first place victory earlier this month in this contest, which tests students' knowledge of computer science, biology, physics, chemistry, and other topics in a grueling 2 day competition. The contest is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. As a member of both the Science and National Security Committees of the House, I have a keen appreciation for the value of science education. It is clear from the hearings these committees convene on the challenges facing our Nation in the 21st century that our future economic prosperity and security depend on cutting-edge scientific advancements. And, in order to make those advancements, we need to continue to teach and train students who will become our future scientists and engineers. I am pleased that Venice High and other schools in LA Unified are prepared to fill that need. The Venice High students faced many obstacles in their way to victory. They competed against 54 other high schools from around the Nation representing 39 different States. Most amazingly, they successfully competed even though they started their school year without a physics teacher and had to rely on self-discipline and the help of a substitute teacher for the first few months of the school year. In addition, these students faced many of the challenges students everywhere face as a result of dwindling resources and the sometimes dangerous atmosphere that students encounter on their way to school. Venice High has, in recent years, experienced problems with gang violence, but with strong support from family and teachers, the students have been able to pursue their goal of academic excellence. I also wish to congratulate Coach Richard Erdman, and Walter Zeisle of the Department of Water and Power, whose agency generously sponsored the student's trip to Washington.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as an early supporter of the Constitutional Rights Foundation, I know how extraordinarily important its education programs are to southern California students. Fortunately so does Alan Friedman, a socially conscious power lawyer who was president of CRF's board of directors from 1992 through 1993. I am pleased to learn that Alan and another close friend and life force, Jack Valenti, will be honored by the Constitutional Rights Foundation in Los Angeles on May 7. Alan has been an active member of the board of directors of the Constitutional Rights Foundation since 1986, taking particular interest in its programs dealing with national and community service. During his presidency of the Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles experienced the riots in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict. Alan rightfully takes pride in the Constitutional Rights Foundation's quick response to the riots by creating teaching materials and developing community service programs involving thousands of Los Angeles youth. Alan is active in many areas in the community. He is a past chair of the labor law section of the Los Angeles Bar, served as labor relations counsel to the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee, and was for many years chair of Mayor Bradley's Labor-Management Advisory Committee. Alan also served on the Los Angeles Board of Civil Service Commissioners and was its president from 1985 to 1986. From 1990 to 1991, he was president of the Board of Bet Tzedek--House of Justice-- Legal Services Foundation and continues to serve on its board. Mr. Speaker, public service is the highest calling. At a time when public budgets are strained, it is particularly noteworthy that fine lawyers like Alan Friedman step up. I salute him.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was in my district yesterday on official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on passage of H.R. 1833, the partial birth abortion bill; ``yes'' on the passage of House Resolution 379; and ``yes'' on the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 102.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Air Force Brig. Gen. Leonard F. Kwiatkowski, who is retiring after 29 years of distinguished service to his country. General Kwiatkowski is the program director for the Military Satellite Communications [MILSATCOM] Joint Program Office, Space and Missile Systems Center, at Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA. General Kwiatkowski began his service to the Nation at a time when the space program was beginning to mature. He managed technology development programs that fielded some of the weapons systems we saw perform so well in the gulf war. In his first Air Force assignment, he was involved in the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Program, at the Los Angeles Air Force Base, which is in my district. This began his highly successful and distinguished career, which has been primarily devoted to the development, acquisition, and fielding of our country's most advanced weapon systems. He has been directly associated with the development of the F-15 air superiority fighter and the delivery of the first F-100 engines for the F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft. He has also been responsible for the development and fielding of our country's most technologically advanced command, control, communications computer, and intelligence systems supporting all of our Nation's services. Additionally, he served with distinction with our NATO allies while assigned to the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe [SHAPE], Belgium. In these assignments he directly contributed to our deterrent posture during the cold war era and also was responsible for delivering key C4I systems to our forces during the gulf war. The systems General Kwiatkowski developed, enabled us to rapidly communicate reconnaissance information, vastly improving the combat effectiveness of our warfighters. In this, his last, Air Force assignment General Kwiatkowski returned to Los Angeles AFB and the Space and Missile Systems Center to direct our Military Satellite Communications Systems. He managed the congressionally directed restructure of the MILSTAR communications system and has guided the program from its restructure through the Defense Department's acquisition decision process, through the launch of the first two satellites and the design and manufacturing of the restructured block II satellite. General Kwiatkowski has been a leader in acquisition reform issues, as well. His efforts have been praised by TRW, the first level subcontractor building the MILSTAR communications satellites for the DOD. The first two satellites are in orbit now. They were launched on time, on budget, and are 100 percent effective. His efforts to reduce the number of military-unique specifications and requirements have encouraged TRW to find lower cost, less complex manufacturing requirements, and saved the taxpayers significant amounts of scarce Defense resources. High-level TRW officials said they will miss General Kwiatkowski's innovations and close working relationship, but they will miss his leadership skills most of all. He was one of the first Defense Department acquisition personnel to use integrated contractor/ government development teams to assess areas of potential risk and word to reduce the risk as the system was designed. Knowing where to devote such risk reduction efforts is already paying dividends as the next- generation advanced military communications satellites are being designed. The general has also served as mission director of the first MILSTAR launch and the Defense Satellite Communications System [DSCS] III launches. In the latter case, under his leadership, the Defense Department completed the full operational capability milestone of the DSCS III constellation. He has also been a vigorous, enthusiastic, catalyst in reforming and streaming the acquisition process. Under his extraordinary leadership, the MILSTAR Program has underrun its budget projections by $1.5 billion and is meeting all of the warfighters' requirements of our country's most complex, secure communications satellite system. General Kwiatkowski has served his country in a truly outstanding manner. Combat aviators, sailors, and soldiers will be more informed, capable, and most important, more likely to survive any future conflicts because of him. That's legacy we can all admire. We all wish General Kwiatkowski, his wife, Carol, and his children, Karen, Michael, and David, the best as this career closes and a new one begins.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the daughter of immigrants in favor of removing the poorly designed and unfairly restrictive legal immigration provisions from the bill before us. I strongly support and have cosponsored the tough measures in this legislation to crack down on illegal immigration. But, like most Americans, although not some that we have just heard from, I believe that legal immigration is the lifeblood of this country, enriching our Nation economically and culturally. We should, of course, be open to reasonable reforms in our legal immigration policy, but H.R. 2202 goes too far. By the year 2002, as we have already heard, the bill will cut legal immigration by 40 percent, and the bill's cap on refugee admissions, which, fortunately, has already been removed, would effectively have ended our historical commitment to helping those who, like my father, who grew up in Nazi Germany, flee oppression and genocide. H.R. 2202 includes important and effective tools for fighting illegal immigration. Let us not bind those changes to the unacceptable legal immigration cuts in title IV.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, last night the other body voted to repeal the hateful and punitive provision in the Defense Authorization Act requiring the immediate discharge of service men and women infected with the AIDS virus. I congratulate them. Let us hope the House supports the other body's courageous action. Mr. Speaker, requiring the discharge of HIV-positive personnel is unfair and punitive and is opposed by the Pentagon, including all the surgeons general of the military services. It is also opposed by the Veterans Administration, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Air Force Association, former Senator Barry Goldwater and conservative columnists George Wills and Charles Krauthammer. It is both unnecessary and bad policy for the Congress to interpose its own personnel policy on the military. As General Shalikashvili has testified, ``discharging service members with HIV deemed fit for duty would waste the Government's investment in the training of these individuals and be disruptive to the military programs in which they play an integral role.'' Let's join such prodefense Senators as Sam Nunn, John McCain and Connie Mack in repealing the requirement that HIV-positive personnel be immediately discharged.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, the people of my district have been sending a strong message since the day I first took office: Stop illegal immigration. I have been listening carefully. I was a member of the bipartisan House task force on immigration which made many of the recommendations on which H.R. 2202 is based. That's why I rise today in support of H.R. 2202, which will give the Federal Government the tools necessary to take control of illegal immigration. The long history of this issue demonstrates that we cannot stop illegal immigration without firmer controls on our borders. The bill before us does so. It gives the Border Patrol the resources necessary to cut down illegal border crossings by adding 5,000 new agents by the end of the century. It also equips Border Patrol officers with the equipment and technology they need to stem the flow of illegal entrants and to outfox the increasingly sophisticated alien smuggling rings which bring thousands of illegal aliens to our country each year. H.R. 2202 also gives the Immigration and Naturalization Service new tools to identify and deport the large proportion of illegal aliens who come here legally but brazenly overstay their visas in order to obtain American jobs. But in order to truly address the issue of illegal immigration, we must also take a hard look at what entices citizens of other nations to skirt our laws and enter our country illicitly. An effective policy to deter illegal immigration must counter the attraction of American jobs and benefits. It must find ways to make it virtually impossible for anyone to come to the United States illegally and expect to earn an income. This bill is an important first step in implementing such a policy. It is strong on workplace enforcement, levying heavy fines on those employers who prefer to hire cheap undocumented workers at the expense of American labor and in violation of the law. It also provides new eligibility verification programs and improved identification documents 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 creates new anticounterfeiting laws to crack down on those who would profit from attempts to skirt worker-verification laws. Mr. Chairman, the strong curbs on illegal immigration that this bill would put in place are of critical importance to the people of my district, to southern California, and to the Nation. I urge my colleagues to reject attempts to weigh this bill down with new guestworker programs and, as the daughter of immigrants, I strongly urge the House to reject poorly thoughtout caps on legal immigration. We must act on illegal immigration, and we must act today. It's important to the success of our efforts that we do it the right way.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 149, and to condemn in the strongest possible terms the use of terrorism by the enemies of peace in the Middle East. In the past 2 weeks, Israel has been the victim of four gruesome and horrible bombing attacks. Like all Americans, I am saddened and shocked by the killings, and I want to extend my condolences to the families of the slain. But the dead, among them children, are not the only innocent victims of the bombs, nor are they the bombers' primary target. Instead, the bombs have been carefully placed to undermine the foundations of the peace process, to shatter every Israeli's sense of basic security, and to threaten the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, the people of the United States cannot and will not sit by complacently as extremists like Hamas and Islamic Jihad attempt to destroy the best hope for Middle East peace through terror and violence. I commend President Clinton for his swift condemnation of the recent attacks, and for his commitment to provide Isarel with counter- terrorism technology and assistance. I encourage further cooperation between Israel and the United States in finding ways to stop terrorists from striking. And I endorse the upcoming summit in Egypt, where over 30 nations, including many Arab States, will seek to develop international strategies for fighting terrorism. But the Palestinian Authority, as Israel's partner in the peace process, must also assume responsibility for ensuring that the atrocious attacks of the past month are never repeated. We must let Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Council know that America cannot tolerate failure in stopping terror attacks on innocent Israeli civilians. The authority's crackdown on Hamas over the past week is a welcome step, and should be noted. But we must make absolutely clear America's interest in seeing the Palestinian Authority control the violence of rejectionist minority groups like Hamas, and in seeing the Palestinian Council fully accept the peace process by purging from its charter all reference to the destruction of Israel. Mr. Speaker, this resolution sends an important message to the world that America will not accept terrorism. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as the mother of lockbox, I rise in strong support of the Crapo lockbox amendment. I hope it will be enacted into law before I become a grandmother. As we have heard from the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], the lockbox has passed three times by overwhelming margins, and yet it languishes in the other body. During last year's appropriations debates, the House passed floor amendments totaling more than $350 billion, and those dollars did not go to deficit reduction, they were reprogrammed. I commend Mr. Crapo for including in his amendment the language offered by my colleague from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, and myself to the House-passed lockbox bill that captured outyear savings. Our amendment was supported by the Concord Coalition and the National Taxpayer Union, among others. It ensured that spending cuts in multiyear programs result in a reduction in the outyear discretionary spending caps, as well as the present year spending caps. Let me explain why such a provision is critical. On average, 95 percent of an agency's personnel funds are outlayed in the first fiscal year. By contrast, only 3.1 percent of funds for constructing military housing are outlayed in the first year. In the case of the Army, 12 percent is outlayed in year 2, 37 percent in year 3, and 24 percent in year 4. Thus, without an outyear savings provision, cutting $100 million out of fast-spending program like personnel may translate into a discretionary spending cut of $95 million. But a successful floor amendment cutting $100 million from a slow-spending program like Army family housing construction only reduces discretionary spending by $3.1 million in the first year. The remaining $96.9 million is not captured and, under our current House procedures, remains available for other spending programs. Lockbox ensures that a cut is a cut. And, the language identical to the Harman-Stenholm amendment ensures that a cut is a full cut, not a cut based on a program's outlay spending rate for the first fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, the time has come. Deficit hawks, please vote for the bipartisan Crapo, Brewster, Foley, Harman, Largent, Schumer, Stenholm, et al, amendment. There is no more time for delay.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a day makes. Yesterday, NASA's Galileo spacecraft beamed back incredible images of Jupiter, our solar system's most intriguing plant. Today, however, Members are ready to allow NASA to be caught in the crossfire of another Government shutdown. When I met last week with NASA contractors in my district, they told me that the failure to enact NASA's appropriation would cause devastation and hardship to the region's aerospace industry. Small contractors, who don't have the financial flexibility of their large counterparts, would be particularly hard-hit. Thermal Electronics, Luna Defense Systems, RGA Labs, and Phoenix Engineering will all be forced to lay off--not furlough, but lay off--a substantial percentage of their workers unless we act in a bipartisan manner to immediately enact a NASA appropriation which funds the space station and key science initiatives like the mission to plant Earth. If one adds in Hughes, TRW, Allied Signal, and Cal Tech's Jet Propulsion Lab, we are talking about the possibility of over 10,000 layoffs. Mr. Speaker, we must find common ground and fund NASA now. Our future depends on it.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I represent a district in California that I consider the aerospace center of the universe, and its future depends on two things. One is a right-sized defense, but the second is diversification, so that the industrial base can prosper in industries like medical research, communications, biotechnology, green technologies, and so forth. Mr. Speaker, that diversification will be hampered if we do not have securities law reform. I am very sorry that the White House has chosen to veto this bill, as it chose or will choose to veto our Defense authorization bill. I think in both cases the growth of California, its export potential, and its cutting-edge technology in the twenty-first century depend on policies opposite those the White House has chosen to take. Mr. Speaker, I would make this point in closing. As a corporate lawyer, I know that there are investors on both sides of securities litigation and victims on both sides. These reforms will protect those who invest and are subsequently defrauded as well as those who invest in companies that are unfairly targeted by strike suits. These reforms are critical to all investors, to our Nation's future economic growth, and to the leading-edge advances that high-technology companies make to improve the quality of our lives.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, like the majority of my colleagues, I wish that our Bosnia policy had been focused and clear 4 years ago, before a quarter of a million people died and 3 million more became refugees. Mr. Speaker, two presidents hesitated and the results were an arms embargo that ratified arms imbalance, a hobbled U.N., and a belated bombing campaign. Another Holocaust was occurring, but the world held back. Time and again the Congress warned the President, and I did too. ``Lift the arms embargo,'' we said. ``Do not make a commitment of troops a precondition to peace,'' we said, but he chose otherwise. Now, the options are fewer, but I am clear on what course is morally correct. We must support peace. The Dayton accord, though far from perfect, is the last option for peace in an exhausted region. I too was there last weekend and Sarajevo broke my heart. I gave my word to General Bill Crouch, Commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, to Admiral Layton ``Snuffy'' Smith, Commander of the NATO operation, and to Corporal Patricia Villa, Sergeant Marie LaRue, and Private First Class Don Bradley, all of California, that I would vote to support them. Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for a resolution that sends a confused message. I cannot vote for a resolution that prevents a separate effort to achieve military parity so the future aggression will be deterred. I would prefer a more just peace, but it is not available. This is the peace we can achieve, and it is unpardonable to let it pass by.