Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in bipartisan support of a strong, balanced space program, and therefore must join the bipartisan opposition to the Obey amendment to terminate the international space station. Our space program must balance human space flight with key science, aeronautics and technology initiatives like the Mission to Planet Earth. By killing the space station, we will greatly disrupt this balance by effectively ending NASA's human space flight efforts. When I came to Congress 2\1/2\ years ago, I was a space station skeptic. I was concerned about the program's cost and how it was being managed. I was not sure that the program's benefits justified continued investment by American taxpayers. But NASA's Administrator Dan Goldin has brought the station program under control. NASA has streamlined management by selecting a single prime contractor, and cut program costs by adding incentives for cost performance and penalties for delays. Mr. Chairman, I am now persuaded that the program's benefits are enormous. Station's unique zero-gravity research environment will allow new insights into human health and disease prevention and treatment. Station's international nature, especially its Russian involvement, will demonstrate that former adversaries can move beyond the cold war and into new era of peaceful cooperation. Station is an investment in our future. Twenty-six years ago, Neil Armstrong took his first step on the Moon--thereby inspiring a whole generation of Americans. Now, the space station will finally give us a permanent presence in space, and will give the next generation a springboard to future human exploration of our universe. Mr. Chairman, our country needs a strong and balanced space program. The international space station must continue.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, a vote to restore some of the funds to the Violence Against Women Act is a vote to fulfill only a part of the promise Congress made to help victims of domestic violence. This promise was made to make America and the home a safer place for women. Last August, 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 the streets safer for women, and to vigorously prosecute perpetrators. We promised more counseling and more shelters to provide a safe haven for abused women. Now this Congress threatens to backtrack on our promise and abandon these promises to combat domestic violence. Under the amendment, the Violence Against Women Act receives only a fraction of the promised authorization of $175 million to fund justice grants to combat violence against women. And while I appreciate the efforts of the committee to add $50 million to the bill for the program, the shortfall is still severe and I fear may be interpreted as a message to battered women that there are few resources for them, only empty promises. A shelter in San Pedro, CA, in my district, desperately needs the money authorized in the Violence Against Women Act to implement its programs to combat domestic violence. Two women whom Rainbow Services had been helping were killed in the last 6 months--women whose lives could have been saved had they 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. The grants in the Violence Against Women Act money translate into saving human lives. Rainbow Services has 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 grant only constitutes half of what they need for their emergency response program, a program operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They just 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 urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment to restore some funding for the Violence Against Women Act. It is critical that we keep our promise to help victims of domestic violence--they cannot wait any longer.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent earlier this afternoon for several votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 566, the Wolf amendment. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 567, the Coleman amendment. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 568, the Andrews amendment. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 569, sustaining the ruling of the Chair. And, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 570, final passage of the Transportation appropriations bill. I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear immediately after the votes.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] for yielding, especially since she knows I rise in opposition to this rule. The reason I am opposed is because once again the lockbox is not included. However, I would like to say to the gentlewoman, and to the other Republican and Democratic members of the Committee on Rules, how pleased I was that yesterday, finally, a lockbox bill was reported with bipartisan support. Now the question is when will the House consider it? This is the lockbox. It is still empty. We have disposed of five appropriations bills. We will dispose of the agriculture bill later today. That is six. Now we are considering a rule for the transportation bill that excludes a lockbox amendment. We have made over $200 million in cuts so far this year; cuts which will not go to deficit reduction. I know the gentlewoman from Utah joins me, as do many of our other colleagues, in feeling that it is far past time to have the lockbox enacted into law. Let us do it quickly and let us get on with reducing the deficit, which the American people demand.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the Democratic Party lost a creative voice and I lost a good friend. Rick Neustadt and I met in the Carter White House, where his keen policy instincts were extremely valuable. He then moved to the private sector where he used his knowledge of communications policy to help fledgling new communications technologies to develop. He did good--and he did well. He also continued his interest in refining and refocusing the Democratic Party to understand new technologies and the new workforce. His ideas were central to an excellent publication by the Democratic Leadership Council in California. I learned a lot from Rick, and was hopeful he would play an increasingly prominent role in the DLC and the definition of the new Democrat. His untimely death in a rafting accident is a major loss to his friends, his party, and his country.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, imagine this scenario: A so-called farmer who lives in a fancy Los Angeles home, drives a luxury car, and enjoys a salary of well over $100,000 from a downtown Los Angeles business may receive a check every year from the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a deficiency payment for the wheat on his Kansas farmland. He may never even visit this land, yet checks are delivered, without fail, to his home in Los Angeles every year. Unbelievably enough, checks for gentlemen farmers just like this are arriving in mailboxes in big cities across the country at taxpayer expense. There are 735 so-called farmers receiving subsidies in the city of Los Angeles alone, and I know they are not living on family farms. They may grow tomatoes in their backyards, but certainly not wheat, rice, feed-grain or cotton--the crops for which deficiency payments are made. The U.S. Government has been paying so-called farmers who live in big cities and have an annual adjusted gross income of $100,000 or more from off-farm sources far too long. Over the past decade, taxpayers have paid more than $1.3 billion to city-dwelling farmers whose permanent full-time residence is in the heart of one of the 50 most populous urban areas in the United States. I strongly support the Lowey amendment, and I encourage all of my deficit hawk colleagues to join me. During a time when reducing the deficit is of tantamount importance, this Government handout should be among the first to go. This amendment will save taxpayers $41 million in fiscal year 1996 alone. As a supporter of the balanced budget, I believe that cutting payments like those to city-dwellers making over $100,000 is critical to achieving our goal. For this deficit hawk, there are many tough budget choices ahead, but this is not one of them. Cutting subsidies for those who don't need them is fiscally responsible, and it's the right thing to do. This amendment will keep subsidies out of the hands of wealthy, nonresident farmowners who don't need or deserve them without curtailing subsidies to hardworking, family farmers. Please join me in supporting the Lowey amendment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hoyer amendment to strike the language that prohibits Federal employees from choosing health care plans that include abortion services. [[Page H 7191]] This is the latest in a series of assaults on a woman's right to choose. The consequence of this assault, like the others being pursued through the appropriations process, is to leave women's rights under Roe versus Wade hollow--effectively to repeal those rights without directly reversing the Supreme Court's decision. Earlier this spring, the House passed a ban on privately-funded abortions in military hospitals overseas. Then came the provision preventing international family planning organizations from using their own funds to provide abortions. Now the assault continues with a ban on abortion services for Federal employees. One ban after another--choice opponents are on their way to rolling back a woman's right to choose. This is a discriminatory change from current policy. Choice opponents in the Congress are now singling out Federal employees to restrict a constitutional right. This is not about Federal funding--employees' own salaries are being withheld. It is about infringing upon employees' rights to bargain for their own benefits. Congress has no place obstructing private insurance companies from offering services that are necessary to women's health. At least two- thirds of private health insurance plans currently include coverage for abortions. Prohibiting Federal employees from choosing insurance plans that offer abortion services endangers their health. The question for our House colleagues is whether they can justify limiting Federal employees' constitutionally-protected rights and limiting their health care options simply because these women receive benefits through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. I strongly believe we cannot. Today's vote is part of a larger agenda to roll back a woman's right to choose without directly reversing Roe versus Wade. This provision hurts Federal employees, and I urge my colleagues to vote for equal rights and health services for Federal employees and their dependents.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, deficit hawks--freshmen Members--lockbox [[Page H 7087]] supporters--Members of the House--defeat this rule. Last week, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee told this Member on this floor of his intention to have the committee report a rule before the August recess that permitted consideration of the bipartisan lockbox deficit reduction amendment. The gentleman is sincere and has worked diligently with me, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster], and other lockbox supporters in that effort. And the news of Thursday's markup is heartening. But prior experience in a related issue causes me to say, ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.'' Let me remind my colleagues of similar promises made in the last Congress by leaders of my party. Democratic leaders promised that the A-to-Z bill, cosponsored by a majority of House Members, would come to the floor. ``Soon'' was the operative word. Soon Labor Day passed. Soon Halloween passed. Soon Thanksgiving passed. No A-to-Z bill. Soon the Congress adjourned. Now, with control transferred to the other party, the same kinds of promises are being made. The same kinds of institutional forces are coming into play. The gentleman from New York promised lockbox would be available as an amendment to an appropriations bill. Now we are told that lockbox can't come to the floor until after Labor Day--after the House has passed all its appropriations bills. Today, however, we can avoid that scenario. We are asking Members to help make the gentleman from New York's commitment a reality. Today, a majority of this House can defeat the bill and direct the Rules Committee to make the bipartisan lockbox amendment in order. As I said last week, Mr. Speaker, this is the lockbox. Look, it's empty. It's empty despite more than $132 million in savings this body has voted in amendments to five appropriation bills. It's empty because the Rules Committee has, at the direction of the House leadership, again declined to recommend a rule making in order the Brewster-Harman lockbox amendment requiring spending cuts made to bills during floor debate be used solely for deficit reduction. And the lockbox will remain empty unless my colleagues join in voting to defeat the previous question and the rule providing for consideration of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. Let the will of majority rule this House. Vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to some earlier amendments on the National Endowment for the Arts.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong opposition to the amendment offered cutting funds for the National Endowment for the Arts. At home over this weekend, numerous constituents expressed to me their views that cuts for arts programs in public schools and cultural displays at numerous museums and community facilities will deny our kids the chance to develop creativity and to learn about their cultural heritage. For example, the city of Venice has hosted numerous performing arts events, art displays, and multi-media activities that have been enormously popular. A terrific display of one museum's collection of Navajo and Pueblo textiles was funded with an NEA grant. Several travelling performing arts and theater groups have staged programs for the benefit of the citizens of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. The cities of San Pedro, Venice, Torrance, Playa del Ray, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach have enjoyed special education operatic performances. And students attending the elementary, middle and high schools of many of these same cities have participated in improvisational theater sponsored by a touring performing arts and musical company. Mr. Chairman, private funds will not take up the slack to continue these activities if the Congress cuts the National Endowment for the Arts. While fair revisions may be appropriate in times of budgetary streamlining, wiping out NEA is not reform. In fact, cutting funding for NEA is short-sighted. NEA is the Federal Government's vehicle for funnelling funds to local and State arts and humanities councils and organizations. Cutting, if not eliminating, NEA is tantamount to cutting locally-controlled resources. Such an action will have long-term repercussions that could lead to the destruction of community-based arts activities and programs. If this amendment had been successful, the greatest losers would have been our children and grandchildren--those for whom arts education is most important. While I was unavoidably absent last night during consideration of the Stearns amendment that sought to reduce NEA funding, had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. But my vote against the Interior Appropriations bill on final passage is based, in part, on my concern over the level of funding for NEA and the majority's intention to eliminate all of its funding over the next several years.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hoyer amendment to strike the language that prohibits Federal employees from choosing health care plans that include abortion services. This is the latest in a series of assaults on a woman's right to choose. The consequence of this assault, like the others being pursued through the appropriations process, is to leave women's rights under Roe versus Wade hollow--and effectively repeal of those rights without directly reversing the Supreme Court's decision. Earlier this spring, the House passed a ban on privately funded abortions in military hospitals overseas. Then came the provision preventing international family planning organizations from using their own funds to provide abortions. Now the assault continues with a ban on abortion services for Federal employees. One ban after another--choice opponents are on their way to rolling back a woman's right to choose. This is a discriminatory change from current policy. Choice opponents in the Congress are now singling out Federal employees to restrict a constitutional right. This is not about Federal funding--employee's own salaries are being withheld. It is about infringing upon employees' rights to bargain for their own benefits. Congress has no place obstructing private insurance companies from offering services that are necessary to women's health. At least two- thirds of private health insurance plans currently include coverage for abortions. Prohibiting Federal employees from choosing insurance plans that offer abortion services endangers their health. The question for our House colleagues is whether they can justify limiting Federal employees' constitutionally protected rights and limiting their health care options simply because these women receive benefits through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. I strongly believe we cannot. Today's vote is part of a larger agenda to rollback a woman's right to choose without directly reversing Roe versus Wade. This provision hurts Federal employees, and I urge my colleagues to vote for equal rights and health services for Federal employees and their dependents.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues an article by Charles Krauthammer that appeared in today's edition of the Washington Post. I believe that Mr. Krauthammer presents cogent and powerful arguments for continued production of B-2 bombers. He points out that only the B- 2, with its long range, can deploy from secure U.S. bases on short notice and is invulnerable to enemy counterattack. It is the kind of weapon the United States needs for the post-cold war world. I recommend Mr. Krauthammer's article to my colleagues: [From the Washington Post, July 13, 1995] The B-2 and the ``Cheap Hawks'' (By Charles Krauthammer) We hear endless blather about how new and complicated the post-Cold War world is. Hence the endless confusion about what weapons to build, forces to deploy, contingency to anticipate. But there are three simple, glaringly obvious facts about this new era: (1) America is coming home. The day of the overseas base is over. In 1960, the United States had 90 major Air Force bases overseas. Today, we have 17. Decolonization is one reason. Newly emerging countries like the Philippines do not want the kind of Big Brother domination that comes with facilities like Clark Air Base and Subic Bay. The other reason has to do with us: With the Soviets gone, we do not want the huge expense of maintaining a far-flung, global military establishment. (2) America cannot endure casualties. It is inconceivable that the United States, or any other Western country, could ever again fight a war of attrition like Korea or Vietnam. One reason is the CNN effect. TV brings home the reality of battle with a graphic immediacy unprecedented in human history. The other reason, as strategist Edward Luttwak has pointed out, is demographic: Advanced industrial countries have very small families, and small families are less willing than the large families of the past to risk their only children in combat. (3) America's next war will be a surprise. Nothing new here. Our last one was too. Who expected Saddam to invade Kuwait? And even after he did, who really expected the [[Page E 1438]] United States to send a half-million man expeditionary force to roll him back? Then again, who predicted Pearl Harbor, the invasion of South Korea, the Falklands War? What kind of weapon, then, is needed by a country that is losing its foreign bases, is allergic to casualties and will have little time to mobilize for tomorrow's unexpected provocation? Answer: A weapon that can be deployed at very long distances from secure American bases, is invulnerable to enemy counterattack and is deployable instantly. You would want, in other words, the B-2 stealth bomber. We have it. Yet, amazingly, Congress may be on the verge of killing it. After more than $20 billion in development costs--costs irrecoverable whether we build another B-2 or not--the B-2 is facing a series of crucial votes in Congress that could dismantle its assembly lines once and for all. The B-2 is not a partisan project. Its development was begun under Jimmy Carter. And, as an urgent letter to President Clinton makes clear, it is today supported by seven secretaries of defense representing every administration going back to 1969. They support it because it is the perfect weapon for the post-Cold War world. It has a range of about 7,000 miles. It can be launched instantly--no need to beg foreign dictators for base rights; no need for weeks of advance warning, mobilization and forward deployment of troops. And because it is invisible to enemy detection, its two pilots are virtually invulnerable. This is especially important in view of the B-2's very high cost, perhaps three-quarters to a billion dollars a copy. The cost is, of course, what has turned swing Republican votes-- the so-called ``cheap hawks''--against the B-2. But the dollar cost of a weapon is too narrow a calculation of its utility. The more important calculation is cost in American lives. The reasons are not sentimental but practical. Weapons cheap in dollars but costly in lives are, in the current and coming environment, literally useless: We will not use them. A country that so values the life of every Capt. O'Grady is a country that cannot keep blindly relying on non-stealthy aircraft over enemy territory. Stealth planes are not just invulnerable themselves. Because they do not need escort, they spare the lives of the pilots and the fighters and radar suppression planes that ordinarily accompany bombers. Moreover, if the B-2 is killed, we are stuck with our fleet of B-52s of 1950's origin. According to the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, the Clinton administration assumes the United States will rely on B-52s until the year 2030--when they will be 65 years old! In the Persian Gulf War, the stealthy F-117 fighter flew only 2 percent of the missions but hit 40 percent of the targets. It was, in effect, about 30 times as productive as non-stealthy planes. The F-117, however, has a short range and thus must be deployed from forward bases. The B-2 can take off from home. Moreover, the B-2 carries about eight times the payload of the F-117. Which means that one B-2 can strike, without escort and with impunity, as many targets as vast fleets of conventional aircraft. Factor in these costs, and the B-2 becomes cost-effective even in dollar terms. The final truth of the post-Cold War world is that someday someone is going to attack some safe haven we feel compelled to defend, or invade a country whose security is important to us, or build an underground nuclear bomb factory that threatens to kill millions of Americans. We are going to want a way to attack instantly, massively and invisibly. We have the weapon to do it, a weapon that no one else has and that no one can stop. Except a ``cheap hawk,'' shortsighted Republican Congress.

Ms. HARMAN

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

Ms. HARMAN. Let me just finally answer the gentleman that I may well do it, and let me state, further, that I am very concerned about the reason some others may oppose the previous question or the rule which is to eliminate any funding for the NEA and the NEH, actions I strongly oppose. So, for several reasons I will actively consider the gentleman's request.

Ms. HARMAN. I appreciate the request, and I will consider the request, and I certainly do see progress here. I am extremely encouraged by the statements that were just made, and I would just like to commend the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] since he was mentioned. He is a classmate of mine, and he and I and many others have worked on this issue for over 2\1/2\ years, through two Congresses. The lockbox has wide popularity in this body and enormous popularity with the public. I think that if we can enact a real lockbox, as you have just described it, we will have done a great service for the American people. We will be well on the way to balancing the budget which we all support.

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about what the gentleman is saying. It is correct that on a bipartisan basis we are working to deal with the remaining technical issues. It is the first time that I have heard that the lockbox would be retroactive. That is excellent. Retroactivity can deal with the issue I have raised today and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and I have raised day after day in appearing before the Rules Committee. We are concerned that $130 million plus $800 million might escape the lockbox, and what the gentleman has just said about retroactivity is extremely reassuring.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would agree that the gentleman has made a point, and, as a Member here who tries to operate on a bipartisan basis, I agree with that. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying this: My point is that almost $1 billion in spending cuts and unused spending will not go to deficit reduction because the deficit lockbox, which was supported on this floor earlier this spring by 418 Members and only opposed by 5, cannot be offered as an amendment to this appropriations bill. It is precluded under this rule as it was precluded in the rules for the three previous appropriations bills. On that basis, without reference to the word hypocrisy but with reference to the word candor to the American people, I would urge a defeat of the previous question.

Ms. HARMAN. No.

Ms. HARMAN. Did I vote for the budget resolution 2 days ago?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, deficit hawks, freshman Members, lockbox supporters, Members of the House, this is a lockbox. It looks a lot like another box over there, a brown one that says Solomon on it. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is a wise man, as was King Solomon of ancient days, and I am sure that his box is full of many wise documents. But, Mr. Speaker, this lockbox is empty. It does not contain the savings that derive from the many cuts we have made to the appropriations bills we have already debated. Imagine this. Those cuts amount to so far $131.58 million. In fact just yesterday and today, Mr. Speaker, four amendments were adopted to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act totaling $20.48 million. That brings the total to $131 million. That money will not go to deficit reduction because we do not have the lockbox as part of this appropriations bill under this rule or the three previous appropriations bills. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Appropriations scooped up not only the $130 million in cuts we have passed, but other unused 602(b) spending allocations. It gave some of its subcommittees increased spending allocations and put more than $805 million in an unallocated 602(b) reserve, not a lockbox, a reserve. I say to my colleagues, When you add all this together, we are close to $1 billion in unused spending or spending cuts that will not go to deficit reduction. I call this hypocrisy.

Ms. HARMAN. I certainly am for budget reduction, and I am a supporter of the balanced budget amendment and a supporter of the 7-year balanced budget sponsored by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 445 and 446 on H.R. 1868. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 445, and ``no'' on rollcall No. 446.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, Deficit hawks, if you were moved by the Budget Committee chairman's speech on the conference report on the budget resolution, as I was, you'll love this. We can do more to enact real and fair deficit reduction in this bill than we could in that one. How? By defeating the previous question so that the Brewster-Harman bipartisan lockbox amendment can be made in order. Please join our effort. Otherwise another opportunity will be missed to allow our colleagues to vote on spending cuts that actually reduce the Federal deficit. Let me cite an example for my colleagues. During Tuesday's consideration of the foreign operations appropriation bill, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues support cuts totaling $65.069 million. Regrettably not one penny went to deficit reduction. Instead, under the budget rules, the funds freed up by these cut amendments will be reallocated by the Committee on Appropriations on other spending programs. I say to my colleagues, When you add in the $20-plus million in cuts we made in the military construction appropriations bill and yesterday's cuts, those cuts total over a hundred million dollars that don't go to deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, we voted on the lockbox in March on a bill similar to the one we are considering now. The House vote was 418 to 5, including all members of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that makes in order the Brewster-Harman bipartisan lockbox amendment in place of the weaker version contained in section 2003 and 2004 of this bill. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. It is the only way to get a vote in the House on the real lockbox. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the text of the amendment we would offer at this point: amemdment to house resolution 176 On page 2, line 8 strike ``tions. That amendment'' and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``tions and an amendment offered by Representative Brewster of Oklahoma and Representative Harman of California. Those amendments'' On page 2, line 11, strike ``that amendment'' and insert in lieu thereof ``those amendments''.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent during rollcall 410 [[Page H 6215]] to restore funds to the Office of Technology Assessment. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''