Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk about the careful tailoring in this rule for various interests, but we have not heard a word about the vastly popular deficit reduction lockbox. This is the third appropriations bill we are considering, and the third time the Committee on Rules has not make the lockbox in order. For that reason, I rise in opposition to this rule. The lockbox is widely popular here; 418 votes to 5 passed it as part of the rescissions bill. All members of the Committee on Rules voted for it. Most of America wants it. It is our best available tool now to make sure that money cut from these appropriations bills goes to deficit reduction. Just yesterday we passed the military construction appropriations bill. We cut over $20 million from that bill in floor amendments. None of that money will go to deficit reduction. All of it will be reprogrammed. That is wrong. The rule is wrong too. The lockbox should be in order. The lockbox should be in order under the rule on every appropriations bill, and should be passed, as most Members of this House wanted it to as an amendment to the budget act. So vote ``no'' on this rule and vote for the bipartisan Brewster- Harman deficit lockbox.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in honoring a constituent of mine and longtime Westchester resident, Rita Gerber. Rita is concluding a 1-year term as president of the Westchester/LAX Chamber of Commerce, and is being honored by her colleagues at the chamber's annual dinner on June 27. Under Rita's leadership the Westchester Chamber experienced a significant increase in membership, and received its first ever ranking in the Los Angeles Business Journal's listing of the largest Chambers of Commerce in Los Angeles County. The chamber now boasts over 375 members. Rita oversaw a year of firsts at the Westchester/LAX Chamber. The chamber held its first business recognition dinner and also launched the flight path, a walking tour that commemorates pioneers in aviation and aerospace history. The flight path dedication was attended by retired Brig. Gen. Chuck Yeager. Another first was the chamber's protectors' breakfast held to honor men and women in law enforcement. These events would not have been possible without Rita's ability to turn ideas into action. Rita lent the enthusiasm and the consensus building skills she possesses to see these projects through. During Rita's tenure the chamber took a lead role in the formulation of the Los Angeles City general plan, the blueprint for future progress and growth in Los Angeles. In addition, the chamber was instrumental in building a coalition between business leaders and educators in Westchester, ensuring that the area's most valuable asset, its children, are given as many opportunities as possible to learn. Rita is truly a modern woman. Along with all her responsibilities as president of the Westchester/LAX Chamber, she still finds time to spend with her husband Greg, and daughter Christine, 12, their proudest accomplishment. Her friends appreciate her infectious laugh, and her great sense of humor. Please join me in honoring a very special person, Rita Gerber.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today we take up the 2d of our 13 appropriations bills, this time the legislative branch appropriations bill. Sadly, the rule on this bill once again does not include the Brewster-Harman bipartisan lockbox amendment. Later today we will also resume consideration and vote on the military construction appropriations bill. The rule on that bill did not include the Brewster-Harman bipartisan lockbox amendment. Let me explain what is sad about this and why I will vote against the rule to this bill and the rule to future appropriations bills, so long as they do not include the Brewster-Harman bipartisan lockbox amendment. The lockbox is a very simple concept. It is supported by or was supported by 418 Members of this House and I believe all members of the Committee on Rules when it was voted on earlier this spring. What it says is a cut is a cut. It is a mechanism whereby when we cut spending on an appropriations bill, as we did last Friday when we voted down a proposal for an Army museum that would cost $14 million, the money that is saved is scored in a lockbox. It could be called anything, but it is separately and identifiably set aside. That means that when the House bill passes, that lockbox money is identified. When the Senate bill passes, whatever is in the Senate lockbox is identified, and the conferees are required to come out with a figure somewhere between the House and Senate number. That final amount in savings must go to deficit reduction. These are not actual dollar bills that are in a box. This is less money that has to be borrowed, and it is money that comes off the 602(b) allocation. I want to explain to my colleagues if we do not do this, we are deceiving the American people. We are saying that we are cutting spending, when we are not. Instead, we are giving a certain kind of power to the appropriators that the American people do not understand that they have. It is not the right thing to do in this House in my view, to cut spending and then to reallocate that spending without people knowing about it. So one more time, colleagues, deficit hawks, all of you, let me urge that we change this rule to make in order the Brewster-Harman lockbox amendment and that we make clear to the American people that we are not kidding, that the money saved comes off the bottom line, and that the deficit will go down because of the courageous actions we take in this body. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Deficit hawks listen up: I am the Harman of Brewster- Harman, and this is the vote you have been waiting for. By excluding the lockbox, the Committee on Rules is telling us that on the first appropriations bill of the season we are not prepared, let me repeat, not prepared, to force cuts to go to deficit reduction. A little later today we are going to consider at least two cuts to this bill. Should they pass, I am telling your now that without the lockbox, they will not, hear me, not go to deficit reduction. Why not? The answer is that the appropriators, both sides, and this is not a partisan claim, do not want to lose the ability to use saved money for other pet projects. Let me explain how the lockbox, which an overwhelming majority of this House has already supported, works. It works this way: If we cut money from an appropriations bill and we do not at the same time on the public record reprogram it to something else, that money automatically goes into what we call a lockbox. When the House passes its bill, the lockbox contains our cuts. When the Senate passes its bill, the lockbox contains the Senate's cuts. And then in conference the conferees are limited, limited by this mechanism to coming up with a bottom-line figure that is somewhere between the House and the Senate cuts. In other words, the money cut cannot be reprogrammed. They money cut goes to deficit reduction. This concept is overwhelmingly popular out in the land and, in fact, it is probably a better mechanism, or at least a faster mechanism, than the balanced budget amendment because it goes into effect immediately with enactment of the appropriations bill. And I say that as a strong supporter in this Congress, and in the last Congress, of the balanced budget amendment. Let me conclude by saying this: Casting tough votes means casting votes that could hurt at home, and this is the case for me. Most people here know, and I always say it, I represent the aerospace center of the universe, California's 36th Congressional District. I am a strong defense hawk. I spoke for and voted for the plus-ups in the defense budget because I believe in them. I certainly believe in spending on military construction. But I also believe in two other things, and they are relevant today. One is candor. If we are serious about cutting the deficit, let us do it. And the second one is making sure that when I stand here and say that something really is deficit reduction, it really is. And so I tell my constituents right now that by doing this, by voting against this rule and by voting against this bill, I am fighting for you because I am fighting for deficit reduction and candor in this House.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman and salute her. Mr. Chairman, denying servicewomen the right to choose has no place in the defense authorization bill. During subcommittee and full committee markups, I repeatedly urged my colleagues not to include divisive social issues. Regrettably, a majority of the committee voted to repeal current policy and ban all privately funded abortions performed in military hospitals overseas. So now every woman on the committee, Democrat and Republican, rises today in support of striking this punitive and unconstitutional provision. This is a matter of fairness. Servicewomen and military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special treatment, only the right to receive the same services guaranteed to American women by Roe versus Wade, at their own expense, that are available in this country. Under current policy, no Federal funds are used, and health care professionals who are opposed to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle are not required to do so. Today's vote is part of a larger agenda to roll back a woman's right to choose. This agenda hurts military women overseas, and I urge my colleagues to depoliticize this issue and vote for equitable rights and health services for military women and military dependents serving patriotically overseas.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Berman amendment and support the language in the bipartisan committee bill. Let me just make several points quickly. The gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] is fighting a different fight. This is not the Export Administration Act reauthorization, and the bill does not change the existing export rules. Anything exported pursuant to this loan guarantee proposal must comply with the existing protections under the Arms Export Control Act and all the rest of our export controls. It does not cost money. It has no CBO score because the fund that is generated is paid into by the purchasers and by the exporting companies, and it is based on the creditworthiness of the purchaser. Its pluses were stated by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]; its minuses do not exist. I urge support of the committee text and defeat of the Berman amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, you have heard from a bipartisan group in support of the committee language and against the Berman amendment. There is not one arms proliferator among us. We are not for arms proliferation. We are only for an equal playing field for American firms to compete in the international marketplace. I would point out that if exports increase for U.S. firms, the per- unit cost of their goods goes down and the cost, therefore, to the Defense Department goes down as well. So we are saving money for the U.S. taxpayer. This bill has no score. The CBO scores it as zero because the fees paid [[Page H5968]] in are paid in either by the exporter or the purchaser, and they are calibrated based on the creditworthiness of the purchaser. The language of the bill makes that absolutely clear. In conclusion, I would like to quote from the U.S. Department of Defense, which does support this bill. In testimony earlier this year, Josh Gotbaum, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security, said, ``U.S. defense sales are legitimate exports and should enjoy the same access to official export assistance as other U.S. exports. DOD supports the establishment of a defense export loan guarantee program.'' I urge opposition to the Berman amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee on National Security, I support its bipartisan recommendation to plus up the BMD budget. I would particularly like to salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], our chairman, for his leadership on this issue. I also support the subcommittee and the full committee's allocation of the additional funds, which I understand comports with the recommendations of Gen. Malcolm O'Neill, who ably heads the BMDO office at the Pentagon. Theater missile defense threats are real. One only has to visit Israel to understand that it would take 1 minute for a missile from Syria to penetrate Israel's continental boundaries, and 5 minutes for a missile launched from Iran or Iraq. Therefore, I strongly support full funding, as we have, of the United States-Israel BMD collaborative programs, including the Arrow. It is also the case that there are medium-term threats to CONUS, the continental United States, from missile proliferation. Therefore, I support the work we are now funding on national missile defense. It is important and I agree that we must undertake it. However, let me conclude by stressing how crucial it is to reach a common ground on this issue. Let us stop the partisanship. Let us move together. I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] that we have wasted money in the past because there has not been focus and leadership on this program. We are now in a position to supply that focus and leadership, both in the Congress and in the Pentagon. Let us do it. Let us also continue to exercise oversight in the Congress. We are planning to spend a lot more money. Let us spend it wisely. Let us be sure we are getting our money's worth. Let us consider burden-sharing with our allies, because over time it will be clear that these threats are to our allies all over the world, some of whom are fully capable of sharing the costs. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that we should consider modifying the ABM Treaty. I support modifications. However, let us do this in a rational and reasonable way. Let us not proceed by adopting a rogue amendment on the House floor. Let us act with reflection, and let us act effectively for the future. I want to make clear that I would oppose, and it is not being offered as we consider this bill, but I would oppose any effort to unilaterally abrogate our commitment to the ABM Treaty. Finally, let me salute the women and men who have worked so ably on the BMD program in California's South Bay. My constituents have really supplied the intellectual base that has designed and built so many of these systems. With stronger focus, leadership and funding, I am hopeful that, finally, we will have a BMD system that protects our allies and protects us for the future.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] to condition the expenditure of funds for the Nunn-Lugar program. Mr. Chairman, it is one thing to reduce offensive chemical and biological weapons in the Russian arsenal. I agree with the gentleman from California that we need to do that, and would be pleased to work with him on that goal. However, it seems to me to be the height of folly to condition the progress of another successful program that protects American citizens from Russian missiles on our ability to achieve the goal the gentleman sets forth. To cut off your nose to spite your face is the phrase my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has just used. He is right. As he also described earlier, Nunn-Lugar has reduced the threat of Russian missiles, missiles formerly targeted at the United States and our Western allies. We need to remember that the greatest beneficiary of the Nunn-Lugar program is the United States, not Russia, but the United States. To halt progress, by means of this amendment, on reducing the threat represented by the remaining missiles and warheads is to put our citizens, American citizens, at risk. Mr. Chairman, both Nunn-Lugar and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], the author of this amendment, set laudable goals. However, to condition one of the other is to risk both, to risk reducing the nuclear threat and to risk overcoming the threat of chemical and biological weapons. Reject the Dornan amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just returned from a moving memorial tribute to our friend and former Armed Services Committee chairman, Les Aspin. I am not certain Les Aspin would have approved everything in this bill, but his thinking has helped shaped this Democrat's views in strong support. Les Aspin knew that while the tensions of the cold war have ended, it is clear from recent reports in Bosnia, in Central and East Africa, on the Korean Peninsula, and Southeast Asia that the need for well- equipped and well-prepared armed forces has not lessened. The bill before us will substantially improve the Nation's military and economic security. Admittedly, the Committee on National Security has made difficult recommendations, balancing our military force's needs with budgetary constraints. Yet, the bill maintains important defense systems, such as the F/A-18 tactical fighter, space-based military satellites, the C-17 strategic airlift plane, and the B-2 bomber. In addition, it continues in modified form a critical program that encourages the utilization of commercial technologies for defense applications, while maintaining the industrial base needed to meet future national security requirements. Among the provisions in the 1996 defense bill important to our Nation's defense are the funds for long-lead procurement items for two more B-2 bombers. The B-2, in my view, is critical to our future war- fighting abilities. Its stealth capabilities, payload capacity, and long range allow it to respond to short-notice contingencies anywhere in the world. Most importantly, one B-2 bomber can deliver a bomb payload equivalent to what it took 75 bombers and support aircraft to drop in Desert Storm. Thus, fewer service men and women are placed in harm's way. The bill also includes funds for additional F/A-18C/D's, a fighter designed for the Air Force needs of the 21st century. And it also funds continued development of the enhanced E/F version which will meet the Navy's future needs. The bill continues funding for the space-based communications and observation satellites, including $693 million for development of the MILSTAR satellite system. MILSTAR 2 is scheduled for launch in August. Several changes have been included in the bill in dual use research technology partnerships by which the Pentagon leverages commercial technology for defense use. I listened carefully to the colloquy earlier between my colleague and esteemed former chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], and the chairman of the subcommittee on R&D, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], on this subject. They are both right. The $1.235 billion provided in the bill for these partnerships can support a robust program, helped by language I offered to strengthen DOD flexibility to manage it. Funds are authorized in the bill to continue critical research and development of ballistic missile defense systems being designed to protect against missile attacks on U.S. troops and allies in war theaters and, at the earliest practical date, against potential attacks on the continental U.S. These are good investments. Another provision establishes a defense export loan guarantee program at no cost to the taxpayer. The guarantee will allow U.S. defense companies to compete on an equal footing with foreign businesses that sell defense products to U.S. allies. I want to underscore that the program in no way promotes weapons proliferation, as some will contend later in this debate. The program does not alter, nor would I support altering, the stringent arms control export process by which all weapons must be approved prior to export. With these points made, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I regret the committee has sought to reverse two Pentagon policies which I believe the Congress has no business micromanaging. Inclusion of these issues is divisive and a distraction from the important national security issues addressed by the rest of the bill. The first is the committee's recommended ban on privately funded abortions in military hospitals overseas. The second is a provision to require the immediate discharge of all HIV-positive service members. Neither provision was the subject of hearings this year, and both are unnecessary departures from current policy. [[Page H5791]] The bill repeals current policy and bans all privately-funded abortions performed in military hospitals overseas. Under current policy, no Federal Funds are used and health care professionals who do not want to perform abortions are not required to do so. This issue is a matter of fairness. Servicewomen and military dependents stationed overseas don't expect special treatment, only the right to receive the same choices guaranteed to women by Roe versus Wade. Prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain abortion services at overseas military facilities endangers their health. Women will be forced to seek illegal or unsafe procedures, or be forced to delay the procedure until they can return to the States. With respect to the bill's ban on HIV-positive service members, in my view, it is punitive and discriminatory. Current policy prescribes that so long as these individuals are deemed fit for duty by the service in which they serve, they may continue to serve. Neither the Department of Defense nor any of the four services sees a reason to change the policy that works. Neither do I, unless it is to discriminate against a class of individuals who have served their country honorably. Mr. Chairman, I will work hard to change these two provisions, but the bill, in nearly all other respects, is worthy of my colleagues' strong support, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on final passage.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is tough to differ with friends, aspiring playwrights, and the Pentagon, but I am strongly opposed to the amendment offered by Messrs. Kasich and Dellums. To my passionate and effective friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], I say, ``You move me every time you speak.'' But I believe that the Californians I represent believe that the B-2 bomber is the right weapon for the expected war fighting contingencies of the next century. Mr. Chairman, its utility has already been demonstrated. The number of any aircraft required to deliver an equivalent bomb load is 75 times greater than what a single B-2 can do. Fewer pilots, crew, and aircraft are put at risk with the B-2. Its stealth capability ensures that it will strike its target. Its superior range and bomb load make it clear that the B-2 is better than a stand-off missile which still needs a platform that can deliver it within range--usually over enemy territory. Last, it is critical to understand the problems posed by the current mix of our bomber fleet which, by the year 2010, may include B-52H's that are more than 50 years old, and B-1B's that will be 23 years old. The B-2 will bridge the retirement of those aircraft and provide the deterrence necessary in the first few decades of the 21st century. Any successor bomber to the B-2, and I predict we will want one in several years if this program goes down today, will have to incorporate the stealth technology that is the heart of the B-2. As such, it is critical to protect the industrial and intellectual base which designed and manufactured the processes and materials central to the future stealth breakthroughs. I have visited the B-2 factory in California, seen the B-2, climbed on its extraordinary wing, sat in the cockpit and met with representatives of literally hundreds of firms that designed and built it. The talented and highly skilled work force for this aircraft talks in great praise of what it has done, and that praise is well-deserved. It would be tragic to lose those individuals and the skills they represent. Mr. Chairman, the bill's modest level of authorized funding will protect a unique capability that would be difficult to recreate if it were lost as a result of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to reject the Kasich-Dellums amendment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, because of my son's graduation from college, I was necessarily absent for votes on Thursday, June 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 362, directing the President to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia, and I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 366, final passage of the American Overseas Interests Act.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, ``Harman, how ya' doing?'' That was Les Aspin's upbeat greeting each time we spoke. His tennis game was not much, but he sure was. Loyal always to his beloved Wisconsin. A man who loved the House and excelled at the legislative function. A big thinker on defense issues who probably contributed more to conceptualizing our modern defense policy than anyone else. And a true friend. He was certainly there for me as I laid my plans to run for public office for the first time in my middle age. He helped me strategize, he reviewed issues, he gave me credibility, and he personally came to California to campaign for me. After I won, he was there for counsel. And I tried to be there for him too in some tough times. Through it all, he was upbeat. Scarcely a week after his pacemaker was inserted in 1993, Defense Secretary Aspin testified for a marathon 10 hours before his beloved House Armed Services Committee. Near the end, this freshman was temporarily in the chair. When he saw me, he laughed. ``Oh,'' he said, ``when they said there was reform up here, I had no idea it would go this far!'' Aspin, I will miss you.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I supported the balanced budget amendment and, over two Congresses, I have a strong record of supporting budget cuts and budget process reforms. In doing so, I have not been afraid to stand up to my own party, the President, important interest groups, and, in some cases, my own husband. I have often sided with the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Kasich, as he well knows. One example is my support last year of Penny- Kasich, which would cut another $90 billion from the budget. Another is his proposal on baseline budgeting, but I cannot join him today. The budget resolution as reported from the Budget Committee lacks the fairness and bipartisanship of many prior proposals. The resolution assaults with equal bluntness programs which nurture investment in technologies for our country and programs which help students and workers acquire skills and knowledge and the tools they will need to succeed in the 21st century. The resolution makes no distinction in targeting investments in infrastructure, science, and health-related research, environmental protection, veterans, or fighting crime. In fact, to some it is a badge of honor that all areas of the budget are targeted. To be sure, current budget constraints force us to make difficult choices, but they should not force us to make stupid choices--choices like cutting taxes when budget savings should go to deficit reduction or critical investments we have too-long delayed; choices that cut Medicare in the absence of reforms to mitigate the factors that drive up costs; choices that retreat from investments in technology and science and the educational resources which will make or break our Nation's ability to compete in the next century, and choices that hurt children. I have demonstrated that I can take tough votes. But I do so when I feel the option is fair and far-sighted. I cannot vote for the Budget Committee's proposal.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I spoke yesterday generally about this bill and my objections to it. I am rising today to support the Pallone amendment, and also to make some more specific comments about that portion of the bill providing a waiver for full secondary treatment. That portion of the bill was drafted by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], and his district is just south of mine, and we agree on most everything, except for this. I want to explain why we disagree and also to say that we worked together. His office was extremely helpful to me in providing information in support of his amendment, and I hope he understands that my demur has to do specifically with what I believe are the unintended consequences of his amendment on Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica Bay is the largest bay in southern California, and most of it is in my congressional district. I wrote to EPA so that I could understand better whether good science was involved in his amendment and how it would affect Santa Monica Bay. The letter that I received the other day from the assistant administrator of EPA says, in part: This amendment does not appear to be based upon sound science. We are not aware of any scientific documentation which suggests that discharges through outfalls that are 1 mile and 150 feet deep are always environmentally benign. To the contrary, a 1993 study by the National Research Council recommended that, ``Coastal wastewater management strategy should be tailored to the characteristics, values, and uses of the particular receiving environment.'' Thus, we believe this blanket exemption is neither scientifically nor environmentally justifiable, and could result in harm to the people who depend upon the oceans and coasts for their livelihood and enjoyment. And the letter goes on to say specifically that with respect to the Santa Monica Bay Restoration project, a project worked on by all sorts of agencies and individuals in California and supported by California's Governor, Pete Wilson, this blanket exemption could derail the key element of the restoration plan. For those careful and specific reasons, I oppose the Horn language, and I support the Pallone amendment. And let me add just one thing, Mr. Chairman. Somewhere here is a chart that was provided to me by EPA, and it shows the consequences of not going to full secondary treatment. The suspended solids that can be discharged are the biggest problem, and the chart has this broken out by area of Los Angeles. In the L.A. County sanitation district, which would be directly affected by this exemption, the suspended solids are the highest portion of this chart, and it is a big problem specifically for Los Angeles. Let me finally say one more thing. The gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] has sent, I think today, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter, and he makes a point with which I agree, and I want to apologize to him. He says that in a different ``Dear Colleague'' letter circulated by some of us, we said that his amendment could result in raw sewage dumped into Santa Monica Bay. That was an error. I apologize for that. The amendment would result in partially treated sewage dumped into Santa Monica Bay. I urge my colleagues to support the Pallone 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. Speaker, on Monday, May 15, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police will honor over 100 police officers from across the Nation who were slain in the line of duty. Among those officers are two courageous men from the 36th Congressional District of California who gave their lives to protect others. It is with deep sadness that I join in paying tribute to these individuals, Capt. Mike Tracy and Sgt. Tom Vanderpool. Mike Tracy and Tom Vanderpool were both gunned down by a robber on February 14, 1994, while they attended a management seminar for employees of the city of Palos Verdes Estates, CA. Both men were model police officers who leave behind family, friends, colleagues, and a community made all the better by their service. Mike, who was raised in Torrance, CA, first joined the PVE Police Department as a reserve officer in 1966. His colleagues described him as a ``cop's cop'': instinctive, professional, and supportive of his fellow officers. Those close to him say he liked to ``live life to the fullest,'' and many were touched by his humor and humanity. In his spare time, Mike counseled teenagers in trouble. He was also a husband, and father of two. Tom spent his early years in law enforcement with the Los Angeles Police Department before beginning 13 years of service with the PVE Police Department. He was respected by his colleagues and occupied a special place in the hearts of needy children in the community. Every Christmas, he would use his patrol car to deliver toys, blankets, and clothing to these children and their families. A husband and father of three, Tom was preparing to celebrate his 36th wedding anniversary shortly before he was killed. My heart fills with sadness when I think of the tragic circumstances surrounding the deaths of these two officers. The job of our law enforcement officers has changed dramatically from earlier times in our Nation's history. Not only must these officers protect our citizens against dangers unimaginable, but they must increasingly protect themselves from mindless expressions of rage and frustration. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to those men and women who do the job of law enforcement every day. A luncheon to award the South Bay Medal of Valor was recently held in my district to honor those who have performed heroic acts in the line of duty. Capt. Mike Tracy and Sgt. Tom Vanderpool were both awarded the medal posthumously. I only wish the legislative schedule had permitted me to be there, as I was when hundreds of Californians including my Governor attended their funeral. To their families and friends, and to the families and friends of all officers slain in the line of duty, your loved ones were patriots. They gave their lives for ours.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, the aftermath of the cold war presents America with a wide range of opportunities as well as challenges to its pre-eminent position in world commerce. To many, the source of our success provides comfort in the fact of these challenges. And, indeed, the skills and technology which created the military might by which we won the cold war afford us one means for shaping our future response. But skills and technology alone are not enough. We must do more. We must carefully assess the international environment and understand more fully the nature of our competition abroad. Thus, while the United States is poised to build upon its superiority in world commerce, there are some questions which are part of our public debate which remain to be answered. Among them are the evolving relationship between government and business, industry's relative strengths and weaknesses, and how we can open markets currently closed to U.S. investment and products. The answers to these questions are not easy ones. But a recent speech by my friend Michael Armstrong concisely presents some possibilities worthy of further discussion. Mike is the chairman and CEO of Hughes Electronics, a company highly successful because of its clear understanding of the international environment. I commend to my colleagues his remarks on making America an export superpower. America as Export Superpower: Reassessing Government's Role in Economic Growth (By C. Michael Armstrong) It is a tremendous honor to follow the long line of distinguished speakers to this podium. Since its founding in the wake of World War I, the Council on Foreign Relations has been at the very center of the public debate on America's place in the world--a forum for ideas, and a fulcrum for change. I want to underscore right at the onset, that while I am privileged to serve as Chairman of the President's Export Council--and while my visits to Washington have been more frequent--I can still say, at this point, that the views I express today are my own. transitions: 1945-1995 I think all of us were moved by the celebrations--the commemoration--of V-E Day. That journey back to May 1945 to the beginning of a post-war era that was prelude to the long Cold War no one could yet foresee--has undeniable parallels to our present. Today, we are once again making a difficult crossing--ending one era and entering the next: A new world, with new rules for the way nations cooperate--for the way nations compete. As the historians in the audience today know better than I, the outlines of our era are only now becoming clear. Just as American GIs shook hands with Ivan at Torgau on the Elbe in 1945--only to find an implacable Soviet Union blockading Berlin in 1948--periods of transition unfold in unpredictable ways. The distance from 1995 back to the fall of the Berlin Wall or the implosion of the Soviet Union may seem significant-- but in the handful of years since those events, we are only now beginning to seize the opportunities--to shape a future-- beyond the Cold War's long shadow. Already we see more clearly that with the passing of the Cold WAr, the coming competition will be less military than economic: Dominion will be defined by the development of new technologies and economic performance. I am convinced: If the measure of our Cold War strength was military--America's destiny in the remainder of the century is as an Export Superpower. we have an opportunity that is also an obligation. History will judge what happens on our watch. If we are to sustain our role of global leadership and expand our country's economic well-being, it will only happen if America is the Export Superpower of the world. And there are signs we are on track: We've just passed Japan and Germany to regain the top spot as the world's largest exporter--12.8% of all global trade, compared to 10.5% for Germany and 9.9% for Japan. U.S. exports, according to the latest Department of Commerce estimates, are projected at double-digit growth--up from a still-impressive 5 to 7% as recently as one year ago. Broad, bi-partisan leadership has passed NAFTA and now GATT, opening the way to expanded trade opportunities that will boost GDP and job creation. So with all this good news--what's the problem? Why are some of us more concerned than confident? Because the positive signs I've just mentioned coexist with a more worrisome record: A record that points to a far different future--to a competitive implosion so fundamental it could amount to gradual economic disarmament. We've got to ask: Does a decade-long trade deficit of $1.1 trillion dollars define an export superpower? Does a 10-year, $2.1 trillion dollar federal budget deficit--a budget that hasn't been balanced since 1969-- define an economic superpower? Does an education ``deficit'' that produces students that rank consistently in last place among industrialized nations portend a leader of the societies of this world? We've had a good run at economic success for 50 years, but I happen to believe that we succeeded so well economically after World War II also because of some fundamentals: First, we won the war without internal economic destruction. As a result, we quickly re-tooled our war economy and dominated global commerce. Second, we firmly established the world's foremost public education system including a GI bill that opened the door of opportunity to millions throughout our society. And third, we let the market system sort through our problems which gave an adaptive America room to restructure to compete. But is the market system alone enough to deliver America's economic destiny? Just what should the government's role be to enable our businesses to compete globally; to enable our people to enjoy a standard of living second to none; to enable our nation to preserve where history has witnessed the demise of others. technology v. bureaucracy To answer this, we must recognize two new realities that are currently transforming our world: First, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, we are witnessing the fall of economic, social and cultural borders as well. There is an unmistakable, irreversible trend toward open markets-- to the reality and the bounty of a global village. Second, the phenomenon that defines our age--the speed of technology in bringing new products, new capabilities, new markets, new lifestyles and new economics. In contrast to the past, where either government or mega-corporations defined markets, today the contest pits the speed of technology versus the speed of bureaucracy--or, more precisely, the lack of it, as the information age makes a mockery of borders and barriers of all kinds. It is in this context that we should ask, ``How much Government do we need?'' I believe the answer is simply, just enough. Just enough: No more--and no less government than we need to sustain a globally competitive society. Enough government means getting the night government where we need it--and getting rid of it where we don't. While the premise of ``just enough'' is hard to dispute, the devil is in the details. Thus, I would propose we answer two questions with each policy and factor-in our quest for exports: What government must do. What governments should not do. competitiveness, exports and economic growth As we explore this question of government's role in America's export competitiveness, I want to be clear that our country's economic responsibility makes demands of the private sector as well as public policy. While business cannot overcome a government that shackles it with a bureacractic ball and chain, nothing government can do--no policy/no practice/no politics--will spark our economic engine if American business is not competitive. There is sometimes a certain ``no-fault'' mentality that's crept into American management. The antidote is accountability. The ancient Romans had a tradition: Whenever one of their engineers constructed an arch--as the capstone was hoisted into place, the engineer assumed accountability for his work in the most profound way possible: He stood under the arch. If his construction was shoody--he would be the first to know. With out market systems, American management must, at the end, stand under the arch. And we've had our share of fallen arches. Historically, the companies that did not respond to the international challenge are the companies that did not reap the rewards. Look back at the list of companies at the top of the first-ever Fortune 500, compiled back in 1955: Of the Top 50--\1/3\ have dropped off the list/another \1/3\ have merged--only \1/3\ are still going strong. Whatever their industry, the companies that have kept their place all share one common trait. They took their American business international--conquering new markets to create new growth. Now look ahead--to the export opportunities we enjoy: Over the next two decades, 12 countries with a combined population of 2.7 billion--more than ten times the population of the United States--are expected to account for 40 percent of all export opportunities. For countries as well as individual companies, there's a world out their hungry for the goods and services we provide. The question is whether American industry is up the challenge. Many of you know the studies by the Council on Competitiveness of U.S. industry's strengths and weaknesses in 94 critical, cutting-edge technologies. The most recent review showed some positive movement--but also distressing evidence of the distance we've got to go to make our positions more competitive. While the U.S, has improved its position in 22 categories-- a closer look reveals the sobering part of the story. In 11 of those 22 areas we move from the last category--``losing badly or lost''--to ``weak.'' In the other 11, we moved from ``weak'' to ``competitive.'' In not one case--not one--did we move from competitive to strong. Now, getting off the critical list is welcome news for anyone--but finding out the patient has a pulse isn't the same as watching him hop out of bed and run a marathon. what government can do My promise is thus quite straightforward, if we are to be an export superpower, it takes both a competitive commercial base and a competitive government system. For the most part, over time, our market system should define and produce a competitive commercial base. But it is up to all of us to define the role of government in our pursuit of exports. To begin, I'd suggest what government must do. First, while we may need a balanced budget to discipline our politicians, what we need for export growth is a balanced economy. We need a reasonable balance between our country's investment accounts and its ``care and feeding'' accounts. Undisciplined deficits and a disabled dollar are critical challenges government must address. We need competitive and well educated graduates coming out of our schools if we are going to have competitive products to export. It is not enough to delegate such a national policy to thousands of individual communities to solve alone. A national consensus should be followed by a thoughful results-based education strategy. We need a political balance in our system of government that is both principled and practical--that is responsive, committed and gets things done. If we elect people to spend their time serving society, we are out of balance if they spend half their time running for re-election. Whether it takes the form of campaign reform or term limits--a better balance must be struck. Second, government must act to open markets for our exports and our investment. The passage of NAFTA and GATT will serve trade expansion well--and the passage of these landmark agreements was surely a signal from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue that America's destiny is tied to trade. However, we need to build on those successes, and open the markets of the second largest commercial nation in the world. We should all support the difficult negotiations now underway with Japan. It will never be easy; it will take understanding and trust on both sides; but it must be done now. Hopefully, if sanctions are required, they will limit Japan and not just layoff Americans. We need to sustain our support for Mexico, our third largest export market. It is not politics; it is not Federal Aid; it is not a give-away to banking interests; it is simply in our economic self-interest. We need to ensure market access to U.S. consumer goods-- taking aim at restrictive standards designed to keep foreign goods out and protect domestic producers. We need effective, strategic negotiating authority in government to respond, act and conclude. Fast-track negotiating authority is not an option--it is a necessity--if we really want to open markets. And while we drive to open markets, we should concurrently demand that respect for intellectual property rights must be a condition of access to our market. Third, in addition to opening markets, all of our government must act as an export advocate. While we now have a sensible and thoughtful National Export Strategy, we need support and follow-through in the marketplace. It is terrific to see Commerce, Defense, Transportation, Energy and Ambassadors around the world, not only stating their support, but engaging to help make things happen. But we need more advocacy; more agency coordination and consolidation; more leadership in the markets, not just at the podium. However, I've heard proposals to reorganize the U.S. Foreign and Commercial Services--newly named the Commercial Service--a network of offices across the country and in our embassies whose clientele is American companies trying to break export barriers and win business. This is an area where our mistake. It ain't broke--so don't fix it. Fourth, at times, government must act as an export financier. This is not a disguised form of foreign aid. This is a market necessity for large and small American businesses to compete abroad and create jobs at home. There are many instances where businesses and banks with their balance sheets should fear to tread. Where the risk, the venture, or the competition dictates that the appropriate role of government is as guarantor. There is a critical roll for established institutions like the Export-Import Bank. Ex-Im can help broker blockbuster deals--like the recent $500 million package for Indonesia's first-ever private-sector power project. Without Ex-Im's political risk coverage, projects like this one would not go forward--and the loss wouldn't just be Indonesia's because, in this case, the project will provide 7000 new American jobs. And the benefits of export financing and export advocacy should flow so that small businesses can become powerhouses in the export game. There is no reason the small firms in the industrial park down the street can't export to markets around the globe. It ought to be possible in America to be an export entrepreneur. Fifth, we must recognize that long-term export expansion and technology leadership are synonymous. To assure directionr and application, we should enact a permanent R&D tax credit. However, I would add that irrespective of an R&D tax credit, businesses should be investing in R&D to satisfy their futures and stay ahead of their competitors. But tax policy in this country has often helped to shape our republic and assure our future. A permanent R&D tax policy today could help to do just that. And sixth, we need U.S. export policy that addresses a globally competitive marketplace, not policies rooted in the Cold War, fashioned to contain communism rather than expand peace and prosperity. We should have an Export Administration Act that minimizes licensing requirements; that implements, where needed, a licensing process that is fast, fair and responsive; that places commodity jurisdiction within the government where it belongs--based on today's technology and markets; and a Munitions List that is rational to the realities of technology as well as the needs of national security. Anything less constitutes a weakness of American competitiveness--anything less consigns our industry to a kind of bureaucratic Berlin Wall blocking American exports. I disagree with the school of thought that suggests a strong export strategy equals a weak foreign policy. In fact, the truth is just the opposite: Strong exports mean more leverage--more options, more choice in our foreign policy. In our current foreign policy, we seem to think technology can be quarantined by bureaucracy. The fact is: Technology travels. One nation's export ban is another nation's economic boon: An invitation to win trade opportunities while competitor companies are kept in the penalty box. On this last point, an outdated Munitions List too often teaches the right lesson to the wrong people. Last month, it was a businessman stopped at Customs for carrying a telephone on a foreign trip. The phone was equipped with a security scrambler--a technology on the Munitions List. And that made the telephone a dangerous weapon--right along with ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, any foreign national can walk into an American computer store, buy the same encryption software that makes the phone secure--and take it out of the country. And even that is a waste of a plane ticket--because anyone on the internet can e-mail the program, anywhere in the world. You can even print the computer code on a mailing label and send it abroad--for the price of a postage stamp. In fact, there's only one way you can't carry or sell that software abroad--and that's if you're an American citizen. While the government is busy managing exports based on yesterday's threats and technology, the 1995 Cadillac now has more computing power under its hood than the original guidance system that landed the Apollo space capsule on the moon. The examples are legion: In the 1970s the average interval between taking a computer from the drawing board to the market was 7 years. Today, in some cases, a new generation comes along every 12-18 months. 70% of American computer products have a shelf-life of less than 18 months. Some of the fastest growing foreign markets--some expanding as much as 7 to 10% per year--are among the 50 to 60 countries designated as ``sensitive'' on the Munitions List. That's one-third of all the countries in the world--fenced from U.S. high-tech goods and services. We've got to recognize the inherent tension between the speed of technology and the speed of bureaucracy: Government policies that slow non-threatening technology will cost this country its competitive position in the marketplace. I am encouraged that secretaries Christopher and Brown have pledged their support to work with each other, and the Congress, for the passage of an effective Export Administration Act this year. Each of the issues I've identified argue for what is just enough government. While 19 agencies may be too many to achieve a coherent trade policy . . . While the finance function government performs may be fine- tuned . . . While government's role in advocating U.S. exports may be activist in a number of ways . . . We cannot lose sight of the positive role government must play in promoting our economy's export engine. To do anything less would be to abandon our destiny as an Export Superpower--and put ourselves on the path to economic disarmaments. If these are the areas where we need the right kind of government to support export expansion, there are also areas where we need government to change or get out of the way. The most difficult policy that needs to be addressed is also one of the most economically damaging policies of our government. I'm speaking of the use of unilateral economic sanctions. Generally speaking, history has judged unilateral economic sanctions as an unsuccessful policy to change errant behavior. Only if unilateral sanctions are a means of leadership to bring about multilateral sanctions, are the chances of success able to justify the cost at home. That's not the case when we take a go-it-alone approach to sanctions. I would cite two examples. In August of 1993, the State Department invoked unilateral economic sanctions against China for violations of the MTCR. This was due to alleged shipments in 1992 by China of M-11 missile parts to Pakistan. The State Department chose to extend interpretation of the Munitions List to embedded technology. Based on this interpretation, it then forbade the export or launch of commercial communications satellites. As a result: Australia and Hong Kong could not launch their Hughes satellites--satellites that would primarily be carrying home TV, much of it American programming. The Chinese canceled their orders with Hughes for 2 satellites, mainly to be used for tying their banking system together. This was a $400 million order worth hundreds of American jobs. Then, after Chancellor Kohl visited China and pointed out the differences between American and German policy, China canceled a joint agreement to build 10 sat ellites--and transferred this multi-billion dollar agreement to Deutsch Aerospace. Thousands more jobs were lost. The sanctions did little to hurt China--but they certainly registered in California, creating a new wave of unemployment potential among people already dealing with difficult times. Now, there are times when government gets it right. When the issue was piracy of intellectual property rights involving American-made movies and other software, the U.S. threatened the Chinese government--and it paid off, with quick and conspicuous results. We taught the right lesson to the right people. The tragedy is that if there was some process, some required involvement with affected industry, its possible sanctions could be implemented without sustaining such large self-inflicted wounds. Presently the U.S. has just invoked broad unilateral sanctions against Iran. There is no question in my mind--and no lessons we can look to--that suggests sanctions will change the behavior of Iran--unless they are multilateral. The purpose of sanctions cannot simply be to feel politically justified. The purpose, of course, must be to change errant behavior. In imposing unilateral sanctions, this step by the United States should be our calling card for them to join us. If this is not the charge to the State Department, then the outcome will merely be a shift in the flow of commerce, a few thousand fewer jobs in America, and more important, no change in Iran's behavior. To learn from the lessons over time of unilateral economic sanctions, I strongly urge the Administration to put in place a process to involve industries affected and a policy that recognizes that multilateral sanctions, and ``reverse'' sanctions on the offending country are the only effective means to achieve our security objectives. Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, the end of a century is like a hinge in history: A time to look to at the past--and always a time to complete the unfinished work of the future. The steps we take in the final five years of this century could well spell our destiny in the next. Failure to understand the public and private economic imperatives of export expansion, will put us on a slow but sure spiral into economic disarmament: Will earn us a page in history offering a painful lesson in decline--a lesson made more bleak because our prospects were so bright. Success--traveling the path that leads to our destiny as an Export Superpower--will bring a standard of living and a level of security the likes of which earlier generations could never have dreamed possible. To realize that future: We must all pay attention . . . And America must act. Thank you.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 961 and hope all our colleagues know how lucky California is to have the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. Nowhere will the bill's assault on clean water be felt more strongly than in my district. H.R. 961's many loopholes, waivers and exemptions would allow partially treated sewage to be dumped into Santa Monica Bay, a body of water only now recovering from years of neglect and pollution. The EPA has reviewed the ocean discharging provisions in H.R. 961 and has stated that they are neither scientifically nor environmentally justifiable and could result in harm to the people who depend upon the oceans and coasts for their livelihood and enjoyment. While some claim that economics necessitates granting sewage treatment exemptions, dirtier and unsafe oceans will actually hurt southern California's economy by keeping tourists away from our beaches. The bill does not just relax sewage treatment standards, it also dismantles the storm water and wetlands programs. Such disdain for these important clean water safeguards is especially troubling in Los Angeles where storm water or nonpoint source pollution is now recognized as a major threat to the health of Santa Monica Bay. Mr. Chairman, over the past 20 years, the Clean Water Act has been one of our most effective and most popular environmental statutes. In less than 20 weeks, the House will have effectively reversed this progress, if it passes H.R. 961. I urge my colleagues to stand up for clean water and to vote against this dirty water bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting H.R. 1361 the Coast Guard Authorization bill for fiscal year 1996. Among the bill's provisions is one which I and other members of our delegation reintroduced as a bill earlier this session to help California's tourism industry. That provision closes an existing loophole through which California loses an estimated $82 million annually. Currently, under the Johnson Act, a cruise ship which makes an intrastate stop is subject to State law even if that ship travels in international waters and is destined for another State or foreign country. Using this loophole and its authority to regulate gambling, States like California prohibit gambling aboard these ships. Section 408 of H.R. 1361, like our original bill, would allow gambling on internationally-bound cruises. The provision would not cause mainland gambling to expand beyond current State controls. Instead, the provision simply amends the Johnson Act to allow Federal control over voyages that begin and end in the same State so long as any stopovers are part of a voyage to another State or foreign country which is reached within 3 days of the start of the voyage. Cruises within the boundaries of the State of Hawaii are expressly excluded from the effect of this provision. This issue is one of great interest to the citizens of San Pedro and Catalina Island whom I represent. According to Catalina's Chamber of Commerce, the city of Avalon itself loses $1.5 million annually in canceled port visits because of existing law. Similarly, the city of San Diego, from which many cruises originate, is affected. In the last Congress, San Diego's representative, Lynn Schenk, introduced the original legislation on behalf of her constituents and the cruise industry. That measure passed the House, only to die in the Senate. Today's action is a tribute to her dedicated efforts. I urge support for this provision, and for the bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join all my colleagues, particularly those from Oklahoma, in condemning of the bombing of the Federal office building in Oklahoma City and in support of this resolution. To the families and friends of the victims, I extend my heartfelt sympathies and those of every resident from California's South Bay. To the thousands of rescue workers who combed through the destruction looking for trapped individuals, I extend deepest thanks and appreciation for a job well done. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. istook] has eloquently acknowledged and thanked many States for sending help. Among the rescue workers descending on Oklahoma City were two Torrance, CA fire fighters, Mark Andersen and Ian Burnett. Like hundreds of others, both men put their lives and safety at risk searching the devastation for victims of the bombing. But while other workers exhausted themselves cutting re-bar with bolt cutters in their search for survivors, Andersen and Burnett easily sliced through the re-bar using Life Shears, a cutting tool developed by Hi-Shear Technology Corp., also of Torrance. The 20-pound, 18-inch long tool originally was designed for the military to cut communications cables. Andersen worked with Hi-Shear to adapt it to fire and rescue work. It uses a bullet-like propellant to shoot a sharp blade through the re-bar. Rescue workers from other agencies were dazzled by the tool, so much so that the Federal Emergency Management Agency requested 40 additional Life Shears be sent to the bombing site. FEMA also advised other fire departments nationwide to buy the tool. Funding for the development of Life Shears came from the Technology Reinvestment Program [TRP]. It is one of the many examples of the application of defense technology to civilian use. Out of this tragedy came stories of heroism, selflessness, and compassion. It also became the venue for demonstrating technologies that can save lives. Mr. Speaker, let's hope we can prevent incidents of this enormity, but let's also pledge to be prepared in the event of any future natural or human-made devastation. In doing so, we can workers.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of an educational leader from my congressional district, Dr. Sam Schauerman, who is retiring after 7 distinguished years as president of El Camino College in Torrance, CA. He devoted his professional career to the college, starting in 1965 as dean of physical science and then serving as vice president of instruction before taking office as the college's president in 1987. El Camino College serves 25,000 students, granting associate degrees in arts and sciences, and providing an Honors Transfer Program for students who choose to continue at area universities. It also offers numerous special and innovative programs, such as the Puente Project for Hispanic students, Project Success for African-American students, a child development center, and an extensive arts program. I recently had the opportunity to tour the Workplace Learning Resource Center, which works with area business and industrial partners to create customized workplace literacy courses directed to specific technical requirements. This effort will effectively help business in the South Bay become more successful, by providing it with a workforce equipped with the skills needed for today's and tomorrow's competitive environment. Dr. Schauerman was first and foremost devoted to maintaining the highest quality of programs at the school, and he succeeded even during times of lean finances and economic austerity. He also focused his energies on expanding the relationship between the college and the community, through his participation and leadership in groups such as the YMCA, Methodist Church, Private Industry Council, Torrance Chamber of Commerce, and Rotary--both as president of the Del Amo Rotary and as district governor. In addition, Dr. Schauerman brought to the college a new system of shared governance so to allow all those at the school to have a voice in the decision-making process. He began a college council, with representatives of the faculty, support staff, students, and administration and guided its development into an effective voice for local control. The departure of Dr. Schauerman will leave a real void at El Camino College, but I am contributions to the South Bay. I salute this community leader and wish him well in his retirement.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to both tax cut proposals that will be considered today. It is time to stop trying to kid our constituents. We cannot spend $630 billion over 10 years on tax cuts and make any dent in our $5 trillion national debt. Deficit reduction is a higher priority than tax cuts. Put another way, it is a better way to lower interest rates, create jobs and economic growth than to enact the ill-timed tax cuts in these bills. This House just voted, with my strong support, to amend the Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget. And yet one of our first steps is to retreat. It is not credible to link tax reductions to deficit reductions as the sponsors of both proposals would do. This have-your-cake-and-eat- it-too concept would not work because, once again, it postpones the tough decisions about cuts, and, further, it creates uncertainty about whether individuals and businesses can plan on receiving tax breaks. In my view, a number of the proposed tax cuts have merit--but not now. I have two kids in college, and know how higher education expenses burden families. I applaud the Democratic leader for trying to offer relief. But not now. I also support expanded eligibility for fully deductible IRA's, a fair capital gains tax reduction, increased business expensing, and a credit for long-term elderly care. But not now. Let us stop the gimmicks and start the straight talk. Deficit reduction now. Fair tax reduction when we can afford it. That is a tough choice, and in my view, the right choice.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged when the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York concluded on Thursday that the core of the Defense Department's don't-ask, don't-tell policy is unconstitutional. Judge Nickerson is right. At least twice on this floor in the previous Congress, Mr. Speaker, I stated my belief that the ban and the Clinton administration's don't- ask, don't-tell policy violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, the rights of free speech and assembly under the first amendment and the ninth amendment right of privacy. This debate is still far from over. Over the weekend, Speaker Gingrich said the House will again review this policy. He is making a mistake on the merits and on the politics. On the merits he is wrong because reinstating the ban is unconstitutional. On the politics he is wrong because the momentum of the first 100 days will quickly unravel as divisive social issues, like the gay ban, abortion rights, and school prayer are revisited. Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to look the Joint Chiefs in the face and tell them how we think they should organize their forces and enforce the military chain of command. But it is time to recognize that gays and lesbians have always been a part of the military and that they have performed their duties with diligence, patriotism, and honor.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am one of a number of Democrats who rise in strong support of term limits and of this amendment. I have always believed that politics is public service, not a career, and there are many ways to serve. Term limits ensure a constant supply of new ideas and new energy. Term limits are good for both parties. They are good for Congress and, most of all, they are good for the American people. I support them prospectively the majority. But term limits are not enough. Unless term limits are coupled with tough campaign finance reform, I do not believe true reform will be achieved. Today a broad bipartisan group that supports term limits is sending a letter to Speaker Gingrich strongly encouraging him to include campaign finance reform as a high priority for the second 100 days of this session. I look forward to working with Members from both sides of the aisle on campaign finance reform, regardless of the vote today and tomorrow. Let us enact true reform, term limits and campaign finance reform.