Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, for yielding and commend him, my colleague and friend from Orange County, Mr. Cox, and the bipartisan group in both bodies who have worked so hard to bring the securities litigation reform conference report to the floor. I join them in strong support of the conference report and urge the House to vote for it. Early in March, the House began the process of enacting a much needed reform of our securities laws. Today's conference report builds on that effort and melds the best features of both the House and Senate-passed bills into a measure worthy of support. As many of my colleagues have already stated, the future of our Nation's competitive advantage lies in our ability to develop products that are on the cutting edge of technology and research. The business ventures which undertake such activities are among the fastest growing segments of our economy. Indeed, they are the pride of our economy and, for many of us, the pride of our districts and States. As a corporate lawyer, I am well aware that many of these business ventures are saddled by the costs and distractions of unwarranted and meritless lawsuits, filed when stock prices fluctuate for reasons beyond the control of business management. The consequences of these abusive suits are costly legal proceedings that, in virtually every 10b-5 case, lead to settlements. Despite the absence of wrongdoing by management or management's advisers, corporations are essentially forced to pay large sums to avoid even larger expenses associated with putting on a legal defense. During our debate in March, for example, I cited several cases, including that of Sun Microsystems, the world's leading manufacture of computer work stations, Silicon Graphics of Mountain View, and Rykoff- Sexton of Los Angeles. They are only a few of the many examples of the huge waste in resources defending, as well as prosecuting, meritless cases. Also targeted without regard to their actual culpability are deep pocket defendants, including accountants, underwriters, and individuals who may be [[Page H 14048]] covered by insurance. As a consequence, the increased costs they suffer are passed along to businesses. Indeed, American companies pay higher premiums for director and officers insurance. One high-technology company had its premiums increased from $29,000 per year for $2 million in coverage when it was privately held, to $450,000 per year for $5 million in coverage when it went public. Its Canadian competitor pays $40,000 for $4 million in coverage. It is critical to remember that investors are on both sides of these lawsuits. For one side, the return on their investments is reduced by the costs borne by the securities industry generally and the company in which they invested. On the other side, even where they are legitimate claims investors are inadequately compensated because, under the current scheme, lawyers have incentives to settle quickly and move on to the next case. These costs have consequences. Companies targeted because of their volatility of their stock prices have resources diverted from research and development, new product development, and market expansion. Millions of dollars that could be used for productive business purposes are consumed by wasteful lawsuits. Jobs are lost or never created. The conference report before us ends abusive practices and restores investor control over lawsuits. Most importantly, it removes the incentives for abusive lawsuits, and requires courts to sanction parties for frivolous or factually unsupported arguments and motions. Mr. Speaker, if our Nation is to continue to compete in the global market and to excel in those technologies that improve our living standard and that of the world, we need to reform our securities litigation system. We need to ensure that small high-technology and emerging growth companies can devote their resources to research and product development and promotion, instead of paying for the ill-gotten gains derived from abusive lawsuits. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1058.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise in support of this open rule and of H.R. 1350. As a member of the maritime panel of the Committee on National Security, I want to commend [[Page H 14059]] the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], for their leadership in bringing this bipartisan measure to the floor today. While I support the Maritime Security Act, I must note that efforts to improve the U.S. merchant marine industry thus far have been comprised of Band-Aids, when major reconstructive surgery is needed. Even this much needed bill before us is, regrettably, a Band-Aid dictated by fiscal restraints. I have established in my district, home to the Port of Los Angeles, a maritime advisory committee whose members share with me local perspectives on maritime issues. It is clear that a robust national maritime program is required to protect U.S. national security interests, many of which we just heard about from the gentleman from New York. I believe we must approach maritime defense issues in much the same way as we should approach nonmaritime defense issues. For both it is critical that we have an industrial base that can meet both commercial and military requirements as well as retain and build high-skilled, high-wage jobs on which that base relies. We can no longer afford to maintain two distinct industrial bases. Mr. Speaker, the future of our merchant marine is at stake. I urge my colleagues to carefully weigh the consequences of not having a merchant marine, consequences that affect our military readiness as well as our Nation's competitive and rightful place on the world's oceans. I urge support of the rule and for H.R. 1350 as amended by the bipartisan manager's amendment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was on an official excused absence earlier today to attend a funeral, and would like to indicate at the proper points in the Record how I would have voted on the earlier recorded rollcall. On rollcall 810, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 811, I would have voted ``present.'' On rollcall 812, I would have voted ``no.'' And on rollcall 813, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, driving my 11-year-old to school this morning she said, ``Mommy, I need to write a term paper, but the D.C. public library is closed. You worked until midnight last night. Why can't you get the Government started again so that my library will open?'' Mr. Speaker, why can't we? Why can't we stop shouting and issuing press releases and instead find common ground? Why can't we pass a continuing resolution this week and then back off and go home and talk to our constituents, not about whether to pass a 7-year balanced budget, but about what should be in it. There are genuine disagreements among us. If we come back on November 28 and spend 5 or 6 days having an enlightened debate about the Medicare cuts, about tax cuts, about Federal entitlements and block grants. I think our constituents can help us find this common ground that just might get us to passing a 7-year balanced budget. I think we can make our children proud, not just about what we do here, but about how we treat each other.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a responsible effort to fund a strong defense. I supported it 7 weeks ago when we first debated it, and I support it now. Let me make three quick points: This is not a less dangerous world. Many of us traveled to Jerusalem just last week to pay honor to the visionary peacemaker who was martyred for his cause. Religious fanaticism is increasing all around the world and it takes many forms. We need to be prepared. Second, the abortion rider has no place in this bill. It caused the House to defeat the conference report when it first came up. It serves to penalize military servicewomen and their dependents and makes it difficult for them to exercise their constitutional rights. Third, the plus-up in spending is, in my view, appropriate and I'm prepared to defend it in the context of a 7-year balanced budget, which I voted for. Among the items funded are critical procurement including the C-17, the F-18C/D and E/F, defense satellites, and long lead for more B-2 strategic bombers. Let me comment on the B-2. We can afford to buy more B-2's and we should. Within the budget resolution profile, money is available as we: First, retire the expensive, aging B-52 fleet; Second, buy the cheaper munitions the B-2 uses; and Third, reap savings from acquisition reform. Much of the argument against more B-2's assumes the B-52 will remain combat capable through the year 2030. The last B-52H was produced in the early 1960's, so the aircraft will be almost 70 years old in 2030. If the B-52 were a person at that time, it would be collecting Social Security. Do we want to send our sons and daughters to war in a 70- year-old bomber. I don't think so. I think we want to use the most survivable aircraft possible, an aircraft we have in production right now--B-2. The cost of the aircraft is a concern to us all. But it is half the cost its opponents estimate. The B-2 saves us money by using cheaper weapons. The old B-52 and the B-1 use expensive guided missiles and bombs to fly in from standoff orbits. Since the B-2 can go right to even the most heavily defended target, it can use cheaper laser and gravity bombs, which cost about one one-hundredth of the cost of the B-52's weapons. The new Deputy Defense Secretary testified this May 18 before the Senate Armed Services Committee that, ``If I do not have any carriers available for 15 days and I do not have any tactical aircraft in theater and I do not have any means to get tactical aircraft in theater and we have to continue with this MRC scenario, then I am going to need a lot more bombers than I have in the current force.'' That means B- 2's. We can find further savings in acquisition reform. Last year, Secretary Perry testified that as much as $30 billion could be saved by downsizing and procurement reform over 5 years. Those savings would kick-in just when they are needed most. They would provide more than enough funds for the B-2, within the budget resolution profile. As the mother of the lockbox, no Member is more committed to deficit reduction than I am. But this is not the way to get smart, prudent deficit reduction. [[Page H 13059]] Mr. Speaker, as a parent of two draft-age children and two younger ones, I am convinced that we must field and fully fund the most effective and survivable weapons systems. The most precious resource this country has is our children. Today, in this House, let us fund the best defense for our children and the men and women who will defend them. Vote for this conference report.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to know Yitzhak Rabin, who served his country superbly and simultaneously in dual roles as Prime Minister--and chief peace-maker--and Minister of Defense--and Commander-in-Chief. I was honored to be part of the Congressional delegation to his extraordinarily moving state funeral. The major figures of the Arab world made their first trips to Israel to attend the Rabin funeral, perhaps the best tribute to the impact of the man we mourn. Our large American delegation was seated behind them, and I took strange comfort gazing over the Arab headgear to the plain, flag-draped coffin. King Hussein's remarks were so moving. He called Rabin his brother and friend, and spoke of his own legacy as achieving peace for all the world's children--not just Jordan's. Back at the King David Hotel following the ceremony, our delegation encountered the King, sitting on the terrace gazing at the old city--his first gaze in 42 years since he witnessed the assassination of his grandfather. At the Western Wall, our delegation toured the newly excavated tunnels around the Second Temple. Our guide pointed out that the Second Temple fell because Jews began to fight Jews. The air was redolent with the unasked question: Would this--Jerusalem's rebirth and the best chance for peace in the history of the Middle East--come apart because, once again, Jew is fighting Jew? I pray not, and urge passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 31 which pays tribute to one of the world's great leaders and reaffirms America's support for the peace process.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, due to a family obligation, I was not present to vote yesterday afternoon. If I had been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 757, the rules resolution for the District of Columbia Appropriations Act; ``no'' on rollcall 758, the Bonilla amendment revoking the D.C. property tax exemption for the National Education Association; and ``no'' on rollcall 759, the Hostettler amendment repealing the District of Columbia's Domestic Partnership Act.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, my family and I would personally benefit from the tax cuts contained in H.R. 2491, but they are wrong. I strongly support the coalition substitute, which cuts spending first and defers tax relief until the budget is balanced. As the mother of the bipartisan lockbox, deficit lockbox amendment, let me point out that the coalition substitute is the only, repeat, the only vote we can take today to include a formal deficit lockbox mechanism as part of our 7-year balanced budget program. Only the coalition substitute makes a cut a cut, this year and in the out years. Deficit hawks, listen up. This is the defining vote for those serious about process reform, reform that will genuinely help to reduce the deficit. Deficit hawks, Republican freshmen, this is the vote you need to make. Support the coalition substitute and its bipartisan deficit reduction lockbox.

Ms. HARMAN

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that when the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] casts his vote, the elderly and disabled in his State will lose $6.5 billion in health care. Most of this is in nursing home care for seniors, which will have to be paid for by the hard-working middle-class families.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. This is a defining time and a defining vote. Very few here have made every vote in the last two Congresses to achieve significant and fair deficit reduction--beginning with support of the 1993 budget which has halved our deficit to the lowest level in a generation and decreased it for 3 years straight. I have made each of those tough deficit cutting votes. And today I will continue to stand up for fairness, for balance, for deficit reduction, and for bipartisanship. In this spirit, I strongly oppose H.R. 2491 as drafted because it funds ill-timed tax cuts by raising the deficit in the short-term and hurting our most vulnerable populations--seniors and children--with devastating Medicare cuts and the termination of Medicaid as a guaranteed safety net for nursing home residents. I strongly support the bipartisan coalition substitute which defers tax cuts until we have achieved a balanced budget, treats cost-of- living increases in a non-inflationary manner, and preserves Medicaid, including regulations against nursing home abuse. In my view, the Medicare cuts in the coalition substitute are deeper than what I would like to see, but this bipartisan effort sets a marker for further discussion. I have met with hundreds of seniors in my district, and will stand with them as we work for the fairest compromise within tough budgetary constraints. Had H.R. 2491 been drafted with real public input, I believe its contents would be different. Now with its expected passage and its expected veto by the President, the real debate must start. Every Federal program, every Federal dollar should be on the table as we debate--openly and in a bipartisan manner--how to share sacrifice and how to share benefits. Every program. Every person. But the operative word is balance--a balanced budget, balanced sacrifice, balanced benefit, and an open and balanced process. Let's begin anew.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, there are three things to commend it. First of all, it reflects a bipartisan compromise on the issue, and it is my view, absolutely, that the more bipartisanship we can have in this institution, the better. Second of all, it recognizes something which was, is, and will be the fact, and that is that Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel. It is very important that everyone understand that Jerusalem was, is, and will be the capital of the State of Israel. Mr. Speaker, third, it allows for flexibility in the timing and manner of the move of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, consistent with progress on the peace talks. It is imperative that we allow the peace process to go forward and do nothing to undermine it. For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the resolution and urge all our colleagues to support it as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1595, the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act. First, the bill reflects a bipartisan approach to the issue-- something essential to effective policy. Second, the bill officially acknowledges that Jerusalem is and should always be the capital of the State of Israel. I have always supported a unified Jerusalem under Israeli rule, and note that this year the world celebrates the 3000th anniversary of King David's establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In this century, after suffering one of the greatest tragedies in history, the Jewish people have finally been able to return to Israel, and to call Jerusalem their own. By moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, America reaffirms the success of that struggle, and the incomparable friendship between our Nation and the State of Israel. Third, the bill carefully permits the time and manner for moving our Embassy to take into account developments in the peace process now underway. The Clinton and Rabin administrations have made tremendous strides in recent days, and it would be counter to the interests of both nations to destabilize that process for the sake of a timetable to move an embassy. I strongly support moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that this month is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. It's been hard to compete for news coverage to raise awareness given all of the attention the O.J. verdict and trial has received--a trial where the issue of domestic violence should have played a critical role. This month, no one can get in a word about anything besides O.J., so I suppose I'll have to comment on the trial if I want to see my remarks in print. Let me say that juror No. 7, Brenda Moran, was under a false impression when she implied there was no relationship between spousal abuse and murder. In 1990, 30 percent of women who were murdered were killed by husbands or boyfriends. Estimates show that one in six women in this country are, or have been, victims of domestic violence. Domestic violence knows no socio-economic, ethnic, or racial lines. Women across America are abused and killed by their partners, and we must do more to stop this. Also occurring this month are negotiations between House and Senate conferees to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill where the funding level for the Violence Against Women Act will be decided. In 1993, the Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, a promise to finally treat domestic violence like the crime that it is, to improve law enforcement, to make streets and homes safer for women, and to vigorously prosecute perpetrators. We promised more counseling. We promised more shelter to provide a safe haven for abused women. Yet this summer, the House of Representatives abandoned these promises. The House-passed Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill has a $50 million shortfall in funds for the Violence Against Women Act. I fear this may be interpreted as a message to battered women that there are few resources for them, only empty promises. I implore the conferees to adopt the Senate level of funding to fully fund the Violence Against Women Act at $175 million. The funding is critical to stopping abuse and providing counseling. Rainbow Services is a shelter in San Pedro, CA, in my district, that desperately needs the money to implement its programs to combat domestic violence. Two women the Rainbow Services shelter and tried to help, were killed in the last 6 months--women whose lives could have been saved had they had been able to stay at the shelter longer. These women came forward and tried to do the right thing, but the resources were not there to keep them away from their abusers long enough. Clearly, grants from the Violence Against Women Act translate into saving human lives. Rainbow Services has long waiting lists for counseling, beds, and all of its other services. The number of women who come seeking help has doubled in the last 3 months since a domestic violence hotline was established in May. The increased funds from California's VAWA grant only constitutes half of what they need for their emergency response program, a program operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Rainbow Services recently received a grant for a new shelter--the first shelter for battered elderly women in the area--and the Violence Against Women Act grants are critical to its operation. I recently visited several shelters in my district and talked to women and heard their stories. I have urged the Los Angeles district attorney, Gil Garcetti, to step up the local commitment to violence against women. But until our national consciousness is raised, local efforts will be inadequately supported and financed. October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, but we must realize that victims of domestic violence live in fear every day of every year. The FBI estimates that a woman is battered every 5 to 15 seconds in America. Our commitment must not be limited to recognizing a special month to combat domestic violence, or simply funding programs to stop the violence. We must continue to raise this issue at the local level, the State level, and the national level until women are no longer afraid to reach out for help, until there are no women turned away at shelters because they are too full, and until domestic violence is recognized as the crime that it is.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of hundreds of seniors in the 36th District of California with whom I met over the course of this debate, I rise in strong opposition to this bill that would decimate Medicare, our most successful Federal program. For more than 30 years, Medicare has guaranteed health care coverage for seniors--99 percent of whom are now covered--and it has dramatically reduced poverty among seniors, from 33 percent in 1965 before Medicare's creation to 13 percent today. I have carefully read the Medicare trustees report. I agree that Medicare must be reformed. We must extend the solvency of the part A trust fund and take steps to control Medicare's high rate of growth--10 percent a year--to save Medicare for today's seniors and for generations to come. Unfortunately, Washington is at it again playing politics. Members from both sides of the aisle have been more concerned with pointing fingers at the other rather than engaging in substantive discussion of real solutions to address the rapidly rising costs of Medicare. I would like to share with my colleagues what I have learned from my constituents, and tell you some of their personal stories. I have been greatly impressed by their understanding of the changes being proposed and their ideas about how to reform Medicare. The plan before us is not Medicare reform--it is Medicare destruction. The bill cuts Medicare by $270 billion over 7 years even though the Medicare trustees have stated that cuts of about $90 billion will extend the life of the part A trust fund to 2006. My constituents have asked: ``why does the Gingrich plan cut Medicare by $180 billion more than what the trustees say is necessary?'' To them, the reason is clear: To pay for an ill-timed tax cut. They want the focus on saving Medicare and balancing the budget--not on cutting taxes. ``We can't afford a tax cut now,'' wrote Glenda Masek. ``And I'm a registered Republican,'' she added. Many seniors recognize the financial problems facing Medicare and express a fervent desire for reforms. Some seniors told me they are willing to pay slightly higher premiums and deductibles, as long as the increases are fair. ``Some of us can afford to pay a little more,'' Irwin Gerst acknowledges. ``But many seniors are on fixed incomes and so any increases should be minimal and gradual and not used to offset tax cuts.'' Like these individuals, I cannot support a proposal that will take money out of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries who have an average income of $13,000 a year. Under the bill before us beneficiaries' monthly premiums will rise to $87 by 2002, as compared to $61 under current law, and $1,700 less will be spent per beneficiary. These figures translate into higher costs for less care. Not all my constituents can afford the increases: One San Pedro senior, Katie Brazerich, pleads: ``Please don't cut my Medicare benefits and raise my premiums. Every single dollar is needed to help with my living expenses. There isn't any extra left for me to cut.'' ``Don't bankrupt us just because we are living longer,'' comments her neighbor. ``These cuts are cruel,'' Lillian Watson observes. Joyce Short, a 75-year-old Westchester resident told me, ``I paid into it [Medicare] all my life, and now I need it.'' Another, 71-year-old Mary Ford, fears she will be put out in the street. ``I have been diagnosed with Lupus and probably will be completely bankrupt if these cutbacks go through. We are the same Americans who went through the Depression.'' I support expanding choices for Medicare beneficiaries. While the bill purports to do this, a choice is not a choice when it becomes too expensive and when doctors move elsewhere. What supporters of the so- called choices in this bill do not mention is that under their plan, beneficiaries will no longer have extra billing protection. This means health care providers can charge seniors above what Medicare reimburses for the same services they receive without additional charge under Medicare today. Fear of extra billing will drive seniors out of fee- for-service arrangements. ``I don't want to be forced into an HMO,'' Virginia Balesteri told me. ``And I don't want my children to have to take care of us.'' These Americans want the right to choose their doctors. If premiums are such that they cannot afford fee-for-service plans, that choice is effectively taken away. I have also heard countless stories of waste, fraud, and abuse within the Medicare system. Seniors have told me about receiving bills for services they did not receive. When they questioned the bills, they were told by Medicare administrators that it was easier and cheaper to just pay. ``If I ran my business like those Medicare folks,'' one told me, ``I'd be going broke, too.'' To counter fraud, one group of seniors in my district has suggested an incentive program for reporting abuses. Others suggested making Medicare billing easier for consumers to understand. They explained that people need to know exactly what the doctors and hospital are charging to make sure that those tests and services were received--and necessary. I agree that legislative change is necessary to crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse, and a bipartisan approach is essential. Health care reform is essential. But the reform must help seniors, one of our most vulnerable populations. I strongly believe that we can make reforms to Medicare that attack fraud and abuse and which lower costs. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Medicare Preservation Act, an oxymoron if there ever was one.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for a strong, balanced civil space program, and in particular for NASA's Mission to Planet Earth Program. Title II of H.R. 2405 contains a bipartisan amendment which I offered at full committee with my colleague Mr. Bartlett of Maryland. That amendment, which was adopted by voice in the Science Committee, restored $274 million of the $323 which had been cut from Mission to Planet Earth. The amendment was budget neutral and required a corresponding general reduction at NASA to pay for the increased Mission to Planet Earth authorization. The intent of both Mr. Bartlett and myself, as well as the language of the amendment, is unambiguous--the amendment authorized an additional $274 million for Mission to Planet Earth, but placed certain conditions on the obligation or expenditure of such additional funds. No conditions or limits were placed on the actual authorization or appropriations. The most important obligation or expenditure condition was a requirement that the NASA Administrator report to Congress on a plan for implementing the recommendations of a recently completed National Academy of Sciences review of the Mission to Planet Earth Program. The National Academy's report, which was released last month, validates the committee's actions of authorizing the additional $274 million. In particular, the report recommends that the Earth Observing System's PM-1 and Chem-1 missions be implemented without delay--an important endorsement in light of earlier committee report language which advocated delaying the missions to realize savings. Additionally, the National Academy found that the scientific basis of Mission to Planet Earth is fundamentally sound, and that any further budgetary reductions would severely damage the program. Mr. Chairman, Mission to Planet Earth's scientific and economic benefits are numerous. In addition to providing invaluable information on global change, the program's scientific data will help us better understand the effects of El Nino conditions on our Nation's farms, and will further the developing science of risk assessment. I urge my colleagues to support NASA's Mission to Planet Earth, as an integral part of a civil space program which balances human space flight with science, aeronautics, and technology.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support both H.R. 1601 and a strong, balanced space program. Exactly 2 months ago, the House decisively defeated an amendment to terminate funding for the international space station. Today, we have the opportunity to pass a multi-year space station authorization bill. This legislation will provide the program with much-needed stability and will show our partners from around the globe that we are firmly committed to this truly international space station. The bill contains an amendment I offered which was adopted by voice in the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, providing that the station is an important part of an adequately funded space program that balances human space flight with key science, aeronautics, and technology initiatives like the Mission to Planet Earth. Mr. Chairman, our country needs a strong and balanced space program. The international space station needs stability once and for all. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1601.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, time is running out to move the statue of women suffragettes from the Capitol crypt to the Capitol rotunda. Despite the unanimous support of the Senate and wide bipartisan support from the House, no action has been taken. Is that where women's rights have been relegated this Congress, to the basement? This Congress has already waged numerous assaults on women. During the appropriations process, choice opponents succeeded in restricting a woman's constitutional right to choose, and they threaten to take us back to the days of dangerous back alley abortions. Congress has broken its promise to take violence against women seriously. Last Congress we passed the Violence Against Women Act, yet this year its funding was substantially reduced. Education is one of the best ways to increase opportunities for women. Congress, however, recently eliminated the Women's Educational Equity Act and reduced job training programs for women. The refusal to move the statue of Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony is symbolic of this Congress' assault against women. If women cannot gain a reasonable place in the Capitol rotunda, what can we expect legislatively? Women gained the right to vote 75 years ago, but we still have a long way to go, even to get out of the basement.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Moran amendment and in opposition to the bill in its present form. The Moran amendment highlights what is wrong with this bill--the bill permits company domination of cooperative workplace organizations, including, most importantly, the selection of the members of these organizations. Proponents of the bill insist that the Moran amendment is unnecessary--that nothing in the bill precludes the election of employee members to these organizations. Yet nothing in the bill guarantees the democratic election of worker representatives. Without the amendment, companies can organize, hand- pick, and set the agenda for employee representation committees and then portray the committees as legitimate employee involvement. That is wrong. If the Moran amendment is unnecessary, then this bill is unnecessary. For nothing in section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act precludes employee involvement in workplace organizations that discuss productivity, efficiency, and safety and health. Nothing in current law and in current NLRB [[Page H 9549]] decisions prevents workers and management from addressing and responding to the internationally competitive business environment. Proponents of the bill argue that the NLRB's decision in the case of Electomation, Inc. caused a ``chilling effect'' on employee involvement programs, yet the data indicate the contrary. In the 2\1/2\ years since the decision, employee involvement programs have continued to grow at a healthy pace, especially in small firms. To the extent that the Electromation ruling may have clouded the law, the Sawyer amendment, which I also support, clarifies it. But, in my view, the unanimous decision in the Electromation case by a Reagan-Bush appointed NLRB and a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel clearly distinguishes the facts in that case. Perhaps that is why the National Association of Manufacturers testified in September, 1994 before the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations that it did not see the need for, and did not propose or support, legislative changes to section 8(a)(2). Mr. Chairman, workplace cooperation is certainly critical to our Nation's ability to compete in the next century. But such cooperation is already possible, indeed, it is flourishing under current law. The key to the success of this cooperation is true independence and freedom of association and representation. It is anathema to our Nation's core values to suggest that company domination of such workplace organizations is the path we must follow to be competitive in the future. Employees and employers can work together now, without Congress resorting to legislation legitimizing company dominated and controlled unions. I urge support of the Moran amendment and defeat of the bill in its present form. Mr. FAWELL, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I also have to oppose the amendment, the concept of introducing an election into this area of voluntary employee teams. Again, I would ask that one stop and recognize that all of what is happening right now in the nonunion sector, where you have obviously all these thousands and thousands of employee teams to which reference has been made, and what we would be doing now is to introduce the concept of an election, and that in turn raises all kinds of questions. You see, we would begin to now restrict and to regulate that which is totally, freely functioning right now. Questions would abound. How would the employer determine who is being represented and gets to vote in the secret ballot election? What management members of the team also represent the employees? If so, would they have to be elected? How long would the campaign period have to be before the election? How would the employer determine whether employees represent other employees? Would the NLRB conduct the election? If not, who would police it to make sure the ballot is truly secret and there is no coercion? One can go on and on and on. We must remember that workplaces continuously form numerous teams; some are permanent, some are just ad hoc, performing a wide variety of tasks, and of a very temporary nature. Teams can be formed to address emergency situations, such as determining scheduling and job responsibilities. Membership changes continuously. Mr. Chairman, this introduces a morass of problems which, understandably, upon first blush, especially if one is not familiar with the National Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Board, it introduces all kinds of problems. It sounds good. I know the gentleman's intentions are good, but, once again, we have a good thing going, it is flourishing, and we ought not to do harm. We should follow the Hippocratic oath and first do no harm. This would do a lot of harm.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Ryan White CARE Act. Its four different titles will continue to bring critical medical and support services to people with HIV/AIDS through the year 2000. It also provides for training programs for health practitioners who treat HIV-positive individuals, and funds demonstration projects to treat and care for HIV-infected individuals with particular needs. The CARE Act is a proven success, and I strongly urge its passage. There is a very human face to HIV and AIDS, and I have witnessed the way that AIDS has impacted the lives of many of my constituents and my friends. Elizabeth Glasser touched my life deeply. She dedicated her life to raising awareness about pediatric AIDS, courageously fighting until she died. Her commitment demonstrated how much one person can do. The Children Affected by AIDS Foundation [CAAF], is another example. CAAF was started in 1993 by Joe Cristina, a vice-president at Mattel in El Segundo, who is also HIV positive. Its mission is to raise funds and support grassroots agencies nationwide that provide direct care, support, and assistance to children with AIDS. CAAF successfully involves corporate America, Hollywood, the media, service providers, advocates, and community organizations. Although CAAF has been incredibly successful in raising private support to combat pediatric AIDS, the Ryan White Act is critical to its continued success. Women's Link, located in Marina del Rey, is an information center for women with HIV that also relies on Ryan White Act funds, as does the Santa Monica AIDS Project, another successful program serving hundreds in my district. Regrettably, Los Angeles stands to lose money under title I and title II of the bill because its appropriations are not sufficient to adequately fund currently eligible and newly added cities. The Senate version has a clause that allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to fully fund the currently eligible cities in the second year. I strongly support that provision. I strongly urge Congress to pass this authorizing legislation, and to fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act. The lives of over 1 million Americans infected with the AIDS virus depend on it.

Ms. HARMAN

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's view and want to associate myself with it.

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I see these advantages in promoting foreign military sales that are definitely circumscribed by our limitations on arms exports, and these are carefully circumscribed. We are not changing the rules with respect to what can be exported and to whom. We are just making it easier to export. If we encourage appropriate commercial foreign military sales, we do three things. Jobs is one. The second thing is we save the industrial base, which, as I mentioned before, we can use to our advantage later as national security problems arise. Third, and this is very important in terms of saving money for the government, we are able to manufacture more units of whatever is exported, because of the exports, and we lower by that means of the per-unit cost of the airplane or whatever the item is, which means that when the U.S. Government purchases that item in the future, for example, the C-17, the per----

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to a good friend and a dedicated fighter for women's rights on the occasion of her 80th birthday. As someone who has reached the age of 50, I can appreciate what it means to reach 80. But what truly amazes me is what Willie has accomplished in those 80 years. Let me relate just a few of those accomplishments. Willie has played a vital role in the development of the League of Women Voters. She rose to the national board of the league in 1959. From this position she directed the league's inner-city voter registration drive, and chaired the league's education fund. Four years after her term as a boardmember, she founded and became the first chair of the League of Women Voters' Department of Litigation. Willie's dedication to public service has also led her to achieve a great deal in other forums. She has fought from women's rights [[Page E 1789]] and civil liberties, serving as a boardmember for the Constitutional Rights Foundation and founding the Center for Women and Girls in Los Angeles. She has been president of the National Women's Education Fund, and has served on the Los Angeles Commission on the Status of Women. Willie has hardly slowed down: she founded the Institute for Women, Law, and Development, on whose board she currently sits, just 3 years ago. At the same time, President Clinton appointed Willie vice chair of the African Development Foundation. Mr. Speaker, Willie Grace Campbell has set a superb example for each of us to follow, leading an active, successful, and socially responsible life for 80 years. It gives me great pleasure to join her friends, colleagues, and those whose lives she has touched in paying her tribute, and wishing her many more productive and happy adventures.