Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roukema amendment to strengthen the welfare reform bill's child support enforcement provisions. As a mother of four, I know that child support enforcement is the mother of welfare reform. The best way to reform our welfare system is to prevent mothers from going on welfare in the first place, and that is what these provisions will do. It is time that both parents take responsibility for themselves and for their children. I applaud the child support provisions in the welfare reform bill before us, which are based on the Child Support Responsibility Act that I, along with many members of the congressional caucus for women's issues, cosponsored. I was distressed to learn, however, that the Ways and Means Committee omitted a critical provision which requires States to enact laws denying professional, occupational, and driver's licenses to deadbeat parents. The Roukema amendment would reinsert this critically important enforcement provision. The child support provisions are built around a key element of the Child Support Responsibility Act, the creation of centralized registries for child support orders and ``new hires'' information, and the centralization of child support collections and distribution. Interstate coordination is critical to reach the high percentage of deadbeats who try to escape responsibility by residing in other States. Although I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Roukema amendment to ensure that both parents take responsibility for their children, this is a good amendment to a bad bill. I also urge my colleagues to support the Deal substitute that would also allow States to suspend the licenses of those in arrears in their child support payments while being tough on work without punishing children.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for the Deal substitute to move people from welfare to work without punishing children. Mr. Chairman, I support bold reforms of our welfare system. The current system is broken and must be dramatically changed, not just tinkered with. I support strong work requirements for welfare recipients. I support job training programs to prepare people for work, and aggressive placement services to move people into the workforce. I support time limits so that welfare is a transition to work--not a way of life. I support strong child support enforcement to assure that both parents are responsible, and to keep many mothers off welfare to begin with. And I support State flexibility so that States can experiment and find innovative ways to reform welfare. But I do not support punishing children by cutting programs that work and disguising these cuts as block grants. Block grants do allow those closest to the people with the flexibility to meet the unique needs of a certain area, but I strongly oppose the block grants proposed in the Personal Responsibility Act. The child nutrition block grant would cut the School Lunch Program and the WIC Program--two programs that are proven successes. School districts in my congressional district serve 413,017 lunches each day, keeping children healthy and ready to learn. Based on the numbers of partially and fully-paid for lunches in my district, block granting the School Lunch Program would effectively mean the end of the School Lunch Program. I have met with school district administrators, teachers, and children in my district, and I know that the School Lunch Program has been incredibly successful. I ate one of these lunches last week with children at Mark Twain Elementary School in my district and saw firsthand the value of the School Lunch Program. I also do not support taking away the child protective services: the services that are the last resort for many kids. I heard from the Los Angeles County Supervisors--Democrats and Republicans--who worry about the huge increase in numbers of children who would fall through the cracks under the Personal Responsibility Act. Denying welfare benefits to many mothers and then cutting child protective services is not welfare reform, it is punishing children. Proponents of the Personal Responsibility Act would balance ill-timed tax cuts on the backs of vulnerable children. Any savings from welfare reform should go toward reducing the deficit--not toward tax cuts. The Rules Committee rejected a proposed lock box amendment similar to the bill I introduced in the House 2 weeks ago. We must ensure that a cut is a cut. While I oppose the Personal Responsibility Act in its present form, I strongly support the Deal substitute. It is true welfare reform. It would move people off welfare and into work administer their own programs. It would allow California to continue its successful GAIN Program. It would establish time limits and require recipients to work for their benefits. It would crack down on deadbeat parents; stronger child support enforcement laws would mean fewer mothers on welfare in the first place. It would also require minors who have children to live with a responsible adult in order to receive benefits. As a mother of four, I know that teens cannot raise children on their own; they need supervision. The Deal substitute's emphasis on pregnancy prevention is a critical component of welfare reform--helping to keep young women off welfare in the first place. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Deal substitute to move people from welfare to work without punishing children.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, the need for rescissions and deficit reduction has never been greater, and I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], my colleague, that it is time to step up to the tough choices. This rule, however, does not afford Members the opportunity to step up to a serious debate about responsible alternative ways to cut spending. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule is arbitrary in forcing proponents of amendments to stay within chapters of the bill, chapters which have no more relationship to the real world than chapters from Alice in Wonderland. ``Then you should say what you mean,'' the March Hare went on. ``I do,'' Alice hastily replied; ``at least--at least I mean what I say-- that's the same thing, you know.'' And what do the rule's proponents say. ``It too confusing to do otherwise.'' Do they mean what they say? Or is this patronizing statement part of an effort to demean the independence, intelligence and integrity of every Member of this body. Further, we could have prevented making disaster relief a political football where victims of disasters are pitted against some of the most vulnerable in our society, the aged, the young and the ill-housed, and we could have had an opportunity to delete the language preventing the President from issuing his executive order on permanent replacement of strikers. I hail the last-minute addition of the deficit lock box, a concept I co-authored and vigorously support, but I am well aware that the majority opposed it in the Committee on Appropriations, it appears now because without it the rule would have failed. I urge rejection of this rule. We can do better.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have said many times that this bill, this amendment, and this concept have many fathers and one mother. As its mother, I was proud to help the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and others attach it to the 1993 budget bill, and I was happy to stand with the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] and others last week to propose it as a mechanism to use in our appropriations process. I trust, as we did before, we will again work together in the future to adapt it to more spending cuts in this House. I support it here because it means that the cuts we will make through this bill will be devoted to deficit reduction. That is right. It is fair. With the failure of the balanced budget amendment, the lockbox concept becomes all the more crucial, and spending cuts in the 104th Congress that are devoted to deficit reduction, start today. I urge support for the amendment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as a woman, mother of four, and corporate lawyer, my life experience intersects the issues involved in this amendment in many ways. My decision to support it was a close one for me, and I thank my colleagues on both sides for giving me the time to explain my views. On the one hand, all of us are horrified by the stories of individuals, many of them women, injured by drugs and medical devices. However, on the other hand, there is a fundamental fairness argument, and real evidence that our present system chills research and development on new drugs and medical device breakthroughs which could be enormously helpful to various at-risk communities, especially women. This amendment is based on the view that if a drug manufacturer is in full compliance, and I stress, full compliance with Federal regulatory requirements, it should not be liable for damages designed to otherwise punish that behavior. I agree. To be sure, the FDA is not all-knowing when it comes to assuring product safety, but it is the best mechanism we have available in balancing the social values associated with drugs and medical devices and the unfortunate injuries which may result from known or unknown side effects. If there are ways to improve the FDA's performance, let us do it. There are risk living in a modern, technologically advanced society. I hope we can minimize those risks, but I give a very high priority to the development of a predictable and fair system where pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms can rely on Government approval and reasonable limits on liability, and thus, invest the millions of dollars it takes to develop medical breakthroughs that will benefit all our citizens. Without these breakthroughs, women really will not have choice, none of us will have choice. None of us will have the opportunities that our first-rate and first-in-the-world medical system could offer. I urge support of this amendment, and would make three related comments about this legislation. First, I hope as it moves through the Congress, two things will change. First, I think the noneconomic damages, which are extremely important to women, will be brought to a parity with economic damages, and, second, I think the cap on punitive damages should be raised at least to $1 million. I know many of us would have supported an amendment in this body to do so. And third, my colleagues from California, Mr. Waxman, who preceded me to the well, was correct in pointing out that the explosion of civil suits has not been in the personal injury area. In California, at least, the number of personal injury suits has been level if not on the decline. Indeed, the number of such suits declined from 132,000 in 1988 to 88,000 in 1992. Still the bill before us is important in that it replaces the costly patchwork of state laws with a uniform law that speeds recovery and provides certainty to manufactures.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join in the bipartisan effort to clarify and improve upon the safe-harbor language contained in the securities litigation reform bill. Investors, the SEC, and securities analysts all agree that forward- looking information, that is, information about a company's future prospects, is critically important to investors. Such information is particularly important to investors of high-technology, high-growth companies, whose very existence pushes the boundaries of technology that are essential to our economy's future growth. By their very nature, the statements of these companies involve a future product, innovation, or technology whose performance is subject to the vagaries of the economy. By their very definition, projections of performance are inherently uncertain and it is often inevitable that the company will fail to meet one or more analysts' expectations. When these companies fail to meet analysts' expectations, they often face abusive lawsuits, which sap resources that could otherwise be used for research, product promotion, and market development. As a consequence, corporate executives have been increasingly reluctant to make forward-looking statements. They are unwilling to put scarce assets at risk if a product is delayed or an earnings estimate is not met. A study by the National Venture Capital Association of more than 200 publicly traded entrepreneurial companies found that 71 percent reported being more reluctant to discuss company performance with analysts or the public. While the immediate loser of such practices are the companies dependent on raising capital in the markets, the ultimate loser is the investor, for whom these statements are invaluable sources of information. Thus, it is not surprising that the safe-harbor language offered by my friend from Silicon Valley is supported by the investment community, the recipients of forward-looking information. One of the largest institutional investors, the California Public Employee Retirement System said that ``a revision to the safe harbor is warranted in order to better balance the dual objectives of maintaining efficient capital markets and promoting investor protection.'' The safe-harbor amendment achieves this balance. I urge its adoption. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].

Ms. HARMAN. I appreciate that. I would make one additional point, that is, the bottom line from this amendment is more information, not less, to investors, and everyone wins from that practice.

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

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield just for one question?

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for trying to do something that concerns many of us in this body who have listened intensely to the debate on this issue. I think that everyone here does not want to deter meritorious lawsuits, but it is also true that there are abuses, and we do want to deal with those abuses in a fair way. I think that the Goodlatte language, especially as amended by him, goes a long way toward doing that, but there are possible excesses in that language, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has suggested a remedy that would amount to a sliding scale of fee awards that would deal with those excesses. I know the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] speaks here from personal experience, and I think it is very commendable that he would offer this. I also want to say that should his amendment fail, I intend to offer an amendment to provide a different approach to this very difficult subject, which I think also merits consideration. My bottom line here is this is not a partisan issue, this is about fairness, it is about curbing abuse, but it is also about permitting meritorious action. I urge support for the Burton amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Burton amendment. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Is this not the precise language that will be offered in the next bill we take up, the securities litigation bill, that was drafted by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], including the possibility that attorneys could pay the fee awards?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his heroic attempt to allow me to offer an amendment that is now part of the motion to recommit. Essentially the motion would borrow fee-shifting provisions from the 1980 Equal Access To Justice Act, which is now a Federal law, and from the precise language that will be offered later today in the securities litigation reform bill by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], which sets up a three-part standard for fee shifting. We feel that this would be much more fair than the language of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] in the present bill. Mr. Chairman, I would commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] for his enormous effort to provide a standard that is fair, but I would point out that in making that standard mandatory, he could very well cause unfair results in close cases and the Cox language, which we will debate fully later, would take care of those problems. I would urge support for the motion to recommit, and I would urge consideration of this much better language.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule for a good bill, a bill I will probably support. We have just concluded a frustrating debate on the Legal Reform Act under a bad rule, and many ideas that could have perfected that bill could not be considered. I, for one, had hoped to change the fee shifting mechanism in that bill to make it identical to the fee shifting provisions in this bill. A bipartisan group wanted to make the change, but the inadequate time for debate elapsed before we could offer our substitute. Had the substitute been considered, I believe it would have passed, and this Member and many others would have supported that bill. H.R. 1058, to which this rule pertains, includes important and meritorious steps to reform securities litigations to litigation. Several amendments to be offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] will further ensure that high technology companies, which are essential to U.S. competitiveness, are reasonably and properly protected by its provisions. In true bipartisan style, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], my friend and colleague, for his leadership on this issue. He described himself yesterday as a recovering corporate attorney. Not only did he and I attend the same law school, but I suffer from the same affliction. I, too, am a recovering corporate attorney. Securities litigation needs reform. This is a good bill. It is a shame debate will be so truncated. Mr. Speaker, the future of our Nation's future competitive advantage lies in our ability to develop products and services that are on the leading edge of technology and research. The business ventures which undertake such activities are among the fastest growing sectors of our economy. Indeed, they are the pride of our economy. Regrettably, many of these business ventures are saddled by the costs and distractions of unwarranted and meritless lawsuits, filed when stock prices fluctuate for reasons often beyond the control of business management. The consequences of these abusive suits are settlements and costly legal proceedings unconnected to the merits of the underlying case. Despite the absence of wrongdoing by managers, corporations are essentially forced to pay large sums to avoid even larger expenses associated with legal defense. Advocates of litigation reform cite empirical studies that show virtually all claims in 10b-5 class actions, meritorious or not, are settled. Let me share an example from the world's leading manufacturer of computer workstations, Sun Microsystems. Founded in 1982, the company now has annual revenues in excess of $4 billion with over 13,000 employees world-wide, including many in my district. Since it's initial public offering in March 1986, the company has been profitable every quarter except June 1989. In that quarter, as the result of the introduction of new technology and the switch-over to a new internal management system, the company reported a loss. When it issued a special public advisory it was hit with three securities class actions within days. And, when the company actually announced its earnings results, two more class actions quickly followed. The five suits were consolidated into a single suit seeking over $100 million. In September 1990, despite the fact that Sun Microsystems had a profitable quarter, two more suits followed the company's announcement that earnings were about 10 cents per share less than what analysts expected. These two suits were consolidated into a suit seeking over $200 million. Mr. Speaker, these suits have drained a staggering amount of money from Sun Microsystems--money that could have been devoted to product development, research, even a return on earnings. In the period from June 1989 to January 1993, Sun Microsystems spent over $2.5 million on attorney's fees and expenses. And this does not include the value of the time lost by management. Because of the possible exposure of $300 million, and with only $35 million covered by insurance, the company agreed to settle the first suit for $25 million and the second suit for $5 million. Amazingly, after these settlements were announced, Sun was hit with an unprecedented derivative action in State court alleging that the settlements were too generous. These actions were also settled, with Sun paying plaintiff's attorney $1.45 million and its own attorneys $500,000. Mr. Speaker, what did shareholders get because of these suits? Nothing more than minor changes to Sun's internal policies. Mr. Speaker, the record is replete with such examples. Examples like Silicon Graphics, Inc. of Mountain View, CA and Rykoff-Sexton, Inc. of Los Angeles. Examples that do not even begin to measure the huge waste in resources spent defending as well as prosecuting such suits. These are resources which companies, like small high-technology and emerging growth companies, can better devote to research, and product development and promotion. The bill, and the improvements that will be offered through the amendments, will reform securities litigation, end abusive lawsuits, and lift the unwarranted burden placed on companies that provide the competitive edge of America's economy.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Goodlatte amendment. While I had intended to offer an amendment to H.R. 988, Mr. Goodlatte's amendment has alleviated many of my concerns about the timing of settlement offers and the process of calculating attorneys' fee awards under the bill. I therefore do not plan to offer my amendment. As reported, H.R. 988 carries with it the potential for abuse. Under the bill, defendants may respond to lawsuits by immediately making low- ball offers, even as low as $1.00, simply to set in motion the time clock on which attorney fees are calculated. My amendment would have addressed this problem by requiring only reasonable, good faith offers to trigger the bill's fee-shifting provisions. The Goodlatte amendment also addresses this problem by tolling the calculation of attorneys' fees until after the date of the last offer by a party. Since parties would not be able to use low-ball offers to set the attorneys' fees' clock in motion, I am confident that the Goodlatte amendment will spur good-faith bargaining rather than procedural gamesmanship. More good-faith settlements will cause more lawsuits to be voluntarily dismissed and will help restore some efficiency to our Federal legal system.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, the pending legislative proposal to turn Child Nutrition Programs into a block grant will mean the end of school lunches in my congressional district--the end of 413,017 meals a day that keep the children in my district healthy and ready to learn. Recently I met with the director of food service for the Manhattan Beach Unified School District. She explained that because most of the children who benefit from school lunches in my district do not receive fully-subsidized lunches, their schools would drop out of the school lunch program if it were changed to a block grant. Districts such as the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District and the Manhattan Beach Unified School District would be forced to eliminate their successful school lunch programs because the schools simply couldn't afford to continue the program on their own. Mr. Speaker, I am a deficit hawk and I am prepared to make tough spending choices. But let's not cut programs that work. Let's not cut critical investments in our children. Let's not cut the school lunch program by turning it into a wasteful and misdirected block grant program.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in support of the Roemer-Boehlert amendment. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment and would identify precisely with the comments of my colleague from New York, Mr. Boehlert. It feels very good to have a Member from the other side reach for some of us here who have been supporting much of the program of the contract but who feel that some of it needs some correction. In the area of judicial review I feel very strongly a correction is needed to this bill, and I would say that many of us who support risk assessment would be extremely comforted if this correction were made. It would make it much easier for us to support the legislation on final passage. Mr. Chairman, I have been a lawyer for over 26 years, most of that time in private practice, and I know that H.R. 1022's judicial review provisions will quickly turn regulatory reform, which we all support, into a lawyer's paradise by providing for interim judicial review. And that is what we are talking about here, interim judicial review of risk assessment and cost-effective analyses. H.R. 1022 will allow any individual to cause regulatory gridlock. This is any individual, as I say. While one of the bill's goals is to improve the science underlying risk assessment, it is ironic that ultimately judges, not scientists, as the last speaker has pointed out, will become the final arbiters of cutting-edge risk-assessment science. Some Members argue that H.R. 1022's judicial review provisions are necessary to guarantee enforcement of the bill. Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth. We in Congress, a Republican- controlled Congress, continue to have oversight of Federal regulatory agencies. This Member is not ready to abdicate that responsibility. While the Roemer-Boehlert amendment would prohibit interim judicial challenges, it does nothing to alter the Administrative Procedures Act, which provides for judicial review of final agency actions. Let me point out that legal review will still be possible at the right time in the process, even with the passage of the Roemer-Boehlert amendment. Under such review, risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses will continue to be part of the record and will, therefore, be subject to court scrutiny. Mr. Chairman, without the Roemer-Boehlert amendment, H.R. 1022 will soon become, as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has said, the ``Full Employment for Lawyers and Lobbyists Act,'' and ultimately the taxpayers will be left footing the legal bills. Mr. Chairman, let us adopt this bipartisan, good-spirited, and very sensible course correction to a risk analysis bill that many of us would like to support.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the Brown substitute. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the poetry of the last speaker. I do, my colleague from California, but now maybe it is time for a little prose. Over the past 2 years, many of us on this side of the aisle have supported legislation to reform the federal regulatory process. Last month this Member voted for the unfunded mandates bill to help reduce the burden of federal regulations on state and local governments, and last week this member voted to simplify and declare a moratorium on regulatory action. I support the concept of risk assessment and last year I joined with you, I believe, to vote against the rule on elevating EPA to cabinet level status because risk assessment and cost- benefit amendments were not even allowed to be considered. I also supported the bipartisan Committee on Science risk assessment bill that was proposed by Members Zimmer and Klein in the last Congress. But, Mr. Chairman, to me the issue is not whether risk assessment legislation must be enacted. It is what is a responsible way to achieve a risk assessment program? I have a number of concerns about H.R. 1022. First, I am worried that the bill's judicial review provisions will cause a litigation explosion in federal courts and could turn into the full employment for lawyers act. Any special interest group, including environmentalists and businesses alike, would be able to cause regulatory gridlock by subjecting interim agency processes to judicial scrutiny. Second, like many Members on both sides of the aisle, I am concerned about H.R. 1022's provisions which would override any conflicting substantive requirement in federal law. I agree that many existing environmental health and safety laws are broken. However, to fix these problems, we must address these issues head on through a statute by statute examination. And finally, while H.R. 1022 purports to ease the sting of federal regulations, I am concerned that the legislation will create too much new federal bureaucracy and red tape. The bill would create a regulatory maze that could end up wasting hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Mr. Chairman, the Brown substitute is a strong risk assessment and cost-benefit bill without the problems in H.R. 1022. I urge the House to accept the Brown substitute and, therefore, to adopt a responsible risk assessment cost benefit bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I request a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida and the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security, Representative Bill Young. We would like to emphasize that dual-use technology is a valuable resource to the Department of Defense and is supported by both sides of the aisle.

Ms. HARMAN. As I said earlier in the debate, such dual-use technology is a key defense strategy for affordable, leading-edge technology. Programs such as the TRP's precision laser machining project employ dual-use technology to enhance technological superiority of defense systems while lowering cots. The PLM consortium represents what has been called a dual-use triple play--first, it brings together defense and commercial firms to put the speed and precision of military laser technology to work in machine shops and manufacturing shops across the United States, second, this development will in turn provide direct benefits to DOD, and third, it will spin back to DOD a superior method for defeating enemy missiles. Projects such as these--over 250 currently underway--are spread throughout the United States among commercial and defense businesses, both large and small.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am for the supplemental, for a strong defense, and a supporter of the balanced budget amendment, but I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 889, because it does not permit adequate debate on the technology reinvestment project, a key dual-use technology program. I hoped to offer an amendment consistent with the approach of the bill providing additional rescissions--as recommended by the Department of Defense--that would have permitted the restoration of approximately half the funding for fiscal year 1995 for TRP. Unfortunately, I was denied the ability to offer my amendment. Even though my amendment has been shut out, I rise now to express my strong support for the TRP program. I believe that TRP is misunderstood, and its problems exaggerated. Without the TRP approach, DOD will not be able to access, shape, and afford much of the technology it needs. TRP gives DOD greater access to affordable, leading-edge technology by leveraging commercial capabilities and markets for military benefit. Let me repeat that; for military benefit. A great many defense needs can be served better and less expensively using commercial means. TRP projects are competitively awarded--as a result, these projects have been awarded to qualified companies and consortiums throughout the country and throughout our districts. These awards--which require a 50 percent match for the applicant--are based on the requirement that the technologies pursued benefit our national security needs. TRP projects are developing dual-use technologies in a range of areas: low-cost night vision, high-density data storage, battlefield casualty treatment, affordable composite aircraft structures, and detection of chemical and biological agents. Few programs have received the level of scrutiny as the TRP. Receiving both considerable praise and criticism, the program was modified to expand participation by small business and increase the military services' involvement to ensure rapid integration into defense weapon systems. Obviously, these changes have not satisfied the new majority. if we need to modify TRP further, by all means, let's do so. But I urge my colleagues to vote against rescinding all of the TRP funding and against killing a key dual-use technology program--it's too important for our industrial base as well our national security.

Ms. HARMAN

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

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.