Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, the per unit cost of the C-17 or whatever it might be is lower to the U.S. Government so, bottom line, we save jobs, we save the industrial base, we lower the cost of defense purchases for the U.S. Government. For all these reasons I think this proposed change in the law is a good idea, and I oppose the amendment being offered by my very good friends over here.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate my friend's words, but I do not believe it is a correct statement of the bill's provisions.

Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would agree with the gentleman that they are close cousins, and I would also say to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] that her leadership on the Committee on Small Business is unassailed and it is with great diffidence that I stand here and suggest that we ought to support the original text of the legislation.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this letter is directed to the Meyers amendment, not to the Collins amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is a very complex and opaque statement of position, I agree with you, but I have read other lines on this proposal.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the first sentence as read by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] says, ``The Administration supports passage of H.R. 1670 as reported by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.'' In conclusion, just let me say again that I reluctantly oppose this amendment and I believe that the administration and specifically the Defense Department are in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 1670 and encourage our colleagues to vote for its passage. ``Better,'' ``faster,'' ``cheaper'' are more than buzz words, Mr. Chairman. Last Congress we began efforts to make these words a reality as we began the process of streamlining the Federal acquisition process. Starting with the enactment into law of FASA, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, H.R. 1670 builds on that initiative. I would like to address right now, however, two issues that I think need more clarification. First is the administration's position. My colleague from Virginia [Mr. Moran] read some excerpts from the statement of administration policy, and I would like to read some others, because they bear on the issue of this amendment. The administration appreciates the committee's intent to authorize the streamlined competitive methods the administration has sought without micromanaging in statute. [[Page H 8876]] These would include, one, authorizing innovative two-phased procedures allowing elimination of uncompetitive bidders prior to full competitive proposals; and, two, allowing reduction of the competitive range after receipt of proposals in order to conduct an efficient procedure. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that efficiency is the only goal, but it is a valid goal. The other goals are opportunity, and ``better'', ``faster'', ``cheaper'', and I think what we are trying to do here is to achieve a balance among three good goals. Let me further read some language from the Department of Defense, which has a position on the Meyers amendment, which is not going to be offered today but, nonetheless, which also relates to this amendment. These defense views were prepared before it was clear that the Meyers amendment would be withdrawn, and they are in opposition to the Meyers amendment, making this statement: The Department of Defense supports the concept that government can no longer afford the time and the administrative burden associated with the requirement that every potential government source must be allowed to compete, even when not all of those sources have a realistic chance of receiving the government contract. Thus, DOD supports the enactment of broad, generic authority to down-select that is not hampered by excessive procedural detail,'' and so forth. And it goes on to be more specific about the Meyers amendment. I would like to say this. As a general matter, though, it is kind of difficult to parse it all. The administration has suggested its opposition to these amendments, not because it is opposed to opportunity, but because it thinks that the reinventing government idea, which should apply to procurement, requires change. After all, if it does not, we will never get to a better allocation of scarce dollars. Change is painful. I think that our colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], has been enormously helpful in this conversation, but my own conclusion, based on my experience with defense procurement and my effort to parse and understand this complex material, is that if we are ever to get to a balance among three goals: Efficiency, ``better'', ``faster'', ``cheaper'', and opportunity, we ought not to adopt this amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate that. I pledge to work with the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to conclude, as I am very close to this center aisle, that when we work in bipartisan fashion on some of these very complicated but very important budget reforms, we make more progress. So I feel this has been a very excellent debate on the House floor. I know it is not over. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], is waiting to speak. But I congratulate both gentleman for the enormous effort made, and also the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], who is sitting quietly in the back there, for his leadership and his friendship.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the constructive comments that the gentleman has just made. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman's accepting this amendment, if I heard correctly. This, indeed, has been tricky to work out. Many of us have spent a lot of time on this amendment, on this concept. I would like to declare myself in addition to mother of lockbox, a de facto member of the Committee on Rules, since I have spent hours and hours over there. But I also want to commend the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Goss, and to commend the gentleman from New York, Chairman Solomon, for really going the extra mile to make this work. I think that if we can get this perfected and if it can apply to the out years, we are doing more by this act to balance the budget than anything else we have done in this Congress.

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am standing here as close as I possibly can to the center aisle to signify the point that there is bipartisan support for the legislation that we are considering. Mr. Chairman, just a moment ago we saw here in the well of the House, Elizabeth Waldholtz, our newest daughter. I would like to say, as a mother of four, how happy I am that a new life has just joined us. I want to compliment my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for his leadership on the lockbox legislation and for his help in bringing the bill to the floor as a freestanding bill, as well as an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. The gentleman from Florida and I both believe that the lockbox approach is a critical step in that long and winding road to a balanced budget. Mr. Chairman, we can do even better. This amendment pairs the mother of lockbox with the father of the balanced budget constitutional amendment. Our amendment will improve the current bill and allow us to capture outyear savings that result from successful floor amendments cutting appropriations. True deficit hawks should support this amendment, as do the National Taxpayers Union and the Concord Coalition. Let me repeat. The National Taxpayers Union and the Concord Coalition support this amendment. Indeed, earlier in the debate, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] made the point that Thomas Jefferson supports this legislation. Mr. Chairman, the Harman-Stenholm amendment is very simple. It ensures that spending cuts in a multiyear program result in a reduction in outyear discretionary spending caps, as well as the present year caps. Let me remind my colleagues that H.R. 1162 as originally introduced by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] and myself, and now cosponsored by 80 of our colleagues, contained provisions capturing outyear spending, exactly what this amendment would do. The Harman-Stenholm amendment restores the original Crapo-Harman language. Why do we need it? Well, here is the answer: If we are cutting personnel funds, 95 percent of those funds are spent in the first year. So we do not need this amendment for personnel cuts. But we need this amendment when we are cutting construction funds, military construction funds, for example, or multiyear procurement programs, which spend out slowly. Only a portion of the funds for those types of programs are spent in the first year. For example, if we voted on a $100 million military construction program, it could be that only $6 million, or 6 percent, is spent in the first year. So if we cut that program, or cut a courthouse that would be valued at $100 million, we are really only applying $6 million to the deficit unless we adopt the Harman-Stenholm bipartisan amendment. Similarly, with major weapons procurement programs, the first year's spendout is very small and the balloon comes later. So if we are serious about deficit reduction, and I think we are, certainly those of us who supported the balanced budget amendment in its various forms are, we need to adopt this amendment so that not only is a cut a cut, but a cut is a full cut. Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, as I did before, that the original Crapo-Harman bill as introduced contained this language. The Brewster amendment to the emergency supplemental bill which was passed earlier this year by 418 votes to 5, contained this language. The more recent version of lockbox that we passed as an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill did not contain this language, but that was necessary as a concession at that time. Now we have a freestanding bill. Now we have the opportunity to restore the original language that 80 cosponsors of the Crapo bill support, that the Concord Coalition supports, that the Taxpayers Union support. Every single serious deficit hawk on both sides of the aisle ought to support this amendment in order to achieve the glidepath we all want to a balanced budget. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Harman-Stenholm bipartisan amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to stand here in enthusiastic support for the lockbox bill. A bit later, I will be offering an amendment to make it even better. But meanwhile, as the self-styled mother of lockbox, who has now moved into being the grandmother of lockbox, I would like to share with our colleagues some of the history here. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] was correct when he said that a number of us introduced this bill almost 3 years ago on the Democratic side. Similarly, a Republican, the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], offered it as a Republican bill. We joined together, and, over time, our bipartisan efforts became the genesis of the bill we are voting on today. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to everyone that prior to signing the budget bill in August 1993, President Clinton signed an Executive Order which enacted a lockbox into which all of the savings generated and the revenues raised under the 1993 budget bill would go. That lockbox concept has yielded hundreds of millions of dollars for deficit reduction, so we know that the concept worked. This bill, as my colleagues have heard, has passed in several forms in this Congress. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] first offered it as an amendment to the emergency supplemental bill earlier this spring and it passed overwhelmingly, 418 to 5. We offered it last month as an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill and it again passed overwhelmingly. Mr. Chairman, here we are again with an independent, stand alone bill, which I think reflects enormous bipartisan support, the very hard work of Republican freshmen and the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], and the Committee on Rules. It is also the product of some very hard work by many on this side of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, I offer my enthusiastic support and I hope that a few minutes from now we will make this bill even better with the adoption of the amendment the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and I will offer.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, at the U.N. Fourth Conference on Women, it was the First Lady, Hillary Clinton, who said there is no one formula for how women should lead our lives. I was there as a member of the bipartisan U.S. congressional delegation, and her remarks rang true to a crowd as diverse and multihued as it was experienced and dedicated. The label radical may fit a few--very few--attendees, but it does not fit the conference. The tenor was all business, and the conversation was realistic about the conflicts between work and child-bearing and about building on the substantial record created by previous U.N. gatherings. Building on a record means action for the United States, as well as China and other countries, and the first action the United States must take here is to ratify CEDAW, the Convention to End Discrimination Against Women, which was submitted for ratification in 1980 and has been pending in the U.S. Senate for 15 years. Yesterday a group of us called on the Senate to act now. It is embarrassing that 144 countries around the world, including all industrialized countries, have ratified CEDAW and we have not. Act now. Ratify CEDAW.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am often a supporter of the initiatives offered by the sponsors of this amendment--and always an admirer--but on this issue of striking the B-2 funding, I rise in strong opposition. In my view, the B-2 saves lives, saves money, and saves a critical asset--our bomber industrial base. As a mother of two draft-age children, my first question about any defense acquisition program is, ``Will it saves lives?'' The answer is a resounding yes. Many arguments have been made in favor of this incredible aircraft, but I want to emphasize one: 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--the 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 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. Mr. Chairman, as a parent, 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 choose the best defense for our children and the men and women who will defend them. Vote against the Kasich-Dellums amendment. We need the B-2.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, imagine, if you will, a female captain serving with distinction in the Air Force at Kunsan Air Base, Korea. Brutally raped off-base, she receives medical and psychological treatment there, and may even receive more sophisticated OB/GYN treatment at the United States medical facility at Osan or at Yakota Air Base, Japan. If, however, she discovers later that she is pregnant as the result of the rape, she will be unable to terminate the pregnancy at the Air Force hospital at Osan or Yakota if the Dornan amendment is adopted. And she'd be endangering her life if she went to a substandard local off-base facility. In fact, this woman would be treated as a second-class citizen-- forced to travel on her own back to the United States to obtain the kind of medical procedure guaranteed under our Constitution to all other American women. For women, the Dornan amendment makes wearing a uniform a liability. That, indeed, may be the recruiting poster designed by the gentleman from California. ``Abandon your rights, all ye women who enter.'' I strongly support the amendment of my colleague from Connecticut to affirm current policy. Under current policy, neither Federal funds are used nor are health professionals required to perform abortions. Under current policy, expenses are borne entirely by the servicewoman or dependent. This is a matter of fairness and equal access to medical facilities. Servicewomen and military dependents stationed overseas don't want or expect special treatment or special rights, only the ability to exercise rights guaranteed by Roe versus Wade, at medical facilities convenient to their post. Remember the female captain stationed in Korea or another country far from the United States. The free exercise of her constitutional rights should not be inversely related to her distance from America's shores. Vote for the DeLauro amendment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, the right to choose is a constitutionally protected right, not a right subject to each State's prerogative. It is a right guaranteed to every woman, not to every State. But with every appropriation's anti-choice rider that passes, the Congress votes to deny more women the constitutional right to an abortion, leaving Roe versus Wade a shell of the protections envisioned by the Supreme Court. This provision is perhaps the cruelest of all. It victimizes women who have already been victims of horrible crimes and who have endured tremendous suffering. Let the record be clear, women are not using the rape and incest exception to the Hyde amendment as a loophole to obtain abortion services. In fact, this provision is not even about saving taxpayer dollars. It is about furthering an extreme anti-choice agenda with the ultimate end of criminalizing all abortions. Vote to strike.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood amendment, salute the distinguished record of Planned Parenthood in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of restoring funds to the title X Family Planning Program. I commend my colleague Mr. Greenwood for offering this important amendment, and am pleased that this amendment has bipartisan support. The Title X Family Planning Program has a history of bipartisan support. It was enacted with broad bipartisan support in 1970, enjoying support from cosponsor former President George Bush. President Richard Nixon signed it into law. It has been reauthorized six times since 1970, always receiving bipartisan congressional support. Unfortunately, choice opponents who don't understand the important role that title X serves seek to eliminate title X. Instead, they have launched an ideological war against Planned Parenthood and in their zeal they may succeed in ending an invaluable program. In fact, title X does something that many on both sides of the choice debate would agree is an important goal: it reduces unwanted pregnancy and makes abortion rare. Like so many other provisions that we have seen during this year's appropriations process, this provision to eliminate title X is part of an anti-choice agenda designed to roll back a woman's right to choose. But this vote isn't even about choice--it's about ensuring quality health care for women. No title X funds go toward abortion; clinics have always been prohibited from using title X funds for abortions. What title X does do is provide quality health care for low-income women, many of whom would not receive health care otherwise. In addition to providing a full range of reproductive health services for low income women, title X clinics screen women for breast an cervical cancer, sexually transmitted infections and hypertension. Title X's family planning services have reduced unwanted pregnancies by an estimated 1.2 million. It is terribly ironic that anti-choice Members seek to eliminate a program that provides quality health care and is a proven success at preventing abortion. Support this bipartisan effort to restore funding to title X, a critically important program to American women that encourages responsible family planning choices.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I commend him for his effective leadership on this issue. First of all, I agree that Mr. Obey that the lockbox should have been passed a lot sooner. Had we had a lockbox at the beginning of this Congress, $479 million in cuts from 11 appropriations bills would have been in it. Instead, today, the lockbox, sadly, is still empty. It will be empty at the end of this bill, because, as has been pointed out, we do not expect to cut money from this bill. Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, we start today on a very good footing with a bipartisan lockbox amendment that many of us have worked on for years. Had it been adopted in the last Congress it could have included more than $600 million in cuts adopted to appropriations bills. I would like to commend the many freshmen on the other side whose involvement was critical in moving the amendment as quickly as it did move. Let me not forget my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster], sitting to right whose formidable presence and leadership on this issue made a big contribution. I also thank Rules Committee Chairman Terry Solomon and Porter Goss for their concerted efforts to report H.R. 1162. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that a reasonable person would believe a cut in a cut, but not here in Congress. Money cut from one appropriation bill is simply shifted to another. Lockbox will stop this practice and make a cut in spending a cut in the deficit. The lockbox, as I have said, has many fathers, but I am its mother, and as a mother, I would like to say how proud I am that after a very long gestation the baby will be born. Congratulations again to all the bipartisan group that worked on this. I offer my strong support for the Crapo amendment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the bipartisan Boehlert-Stokes amendment and against those provisions in H.R. 2099 which threaten human health and the environment. I support the goal of reforming our regulatory system and voted for many of the regulatory reform provisions contained in the Contract With America. Today, however, we considered an appropriations bill loaded with far-reaching legislative riders that prohibit the EPA from enforcing key environmental laws like the Clean Water Act. One of the most onerous riders will prohibit EPA from spending funds to enforce its stormwater permitting program. In southern California, stormwater or nonpoint source pollution is now recognized as the major threat to Santa Monica Bay. Without effective enforcement, stormwater will continue to pollute the bay--resulting in harm to the coastal environment and to the local economy by keeping tourists away from our beaches. Additionally, the bill prohibits EPA from implementing and enforcing its wetlands permitting program. Over 90 percent of California's wetlands have already been lost--we cannot afford to let those remaining--like the Ballona wetlands in Playa del Rey--slip away as well. We must be able to get together on a bipartisan basis to craft fair regulatory reform. We need hearings, authorizing legislation and good, healthy public debate on the issues. Legislative riders on appropriations bill were not part of the voters' mandate last November. We can always do regulation better, but we can't afford to turn our backs on human health and the environment. I urge my colleagues to adopt the Boehlert-Stokes bipartisan amendment--our future depends on it.