[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 144 (Monday, October 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10640-H10642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            FAREWELL ADDRESS

  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that my final hours in the House 
are not among its finest hours.
  My dream of public service began in 1960, when, as a high school 
student, I witnessed the nomination of John F. kennedy for President of 
the United States. Congress is the only public office I have ever held. 
My record reflects many attempts to generate and embrace bipartisan 
solutions. My bipartisan district has applauded these efforts like last 
year's balanced budget agreement. But it also shares my dismay at the 
tenure of our floor debate last week on whether to begin an inquiry of 
impeachment of the President.
  The floor debate had more the feeling of a rally than a sober 
exercise of one of Congress's most awesome responsibilities under the 
Constitution. Indeed, it seemed to me that many Members in the Chamber 
were gleeful and that the exercise was payback for some earlier slight, 
whether from the President or someone else.
  Mr. Speaker, thousands of my constituents have contacted me in the 
past 2 months and by a recent count of 9 to 1 have made clear they find 
the President's conduct wrong, as I do, but they do not want him 
impeached.
  Mr. Speaker, I have said in other forums that not only is the 
President on trial, so is Congress. Unless we show the Nation we can 
trust and respect each other, the Nation will not trust and respect the 
result of our inquiry.
  I regret that my final hours in the House are not among its finest 
hours.
  My dream of public service began in 1960 when, as a high school 
usher, I witnessed the nomination of John F. Kennedy for president of 
the United States.
  Congress is the only public office I've ever held, and my record 
reflects many attempts to generate and embrace bipartisan solutions.
  My bipartisan district has applauded those efforts, like last year's 
balanced budget agreement. But, it also shares my dismay at the tenor 
of our floor debate last week on whether to begin an inquiry of 
impeachment of the President.
  The floor debate had more of the feeling of a rally than the sober 
exercise of one of Congress' most awesome responsibilities under the 
Constitution. Indeed, it seemed to me that many members in the chamber 
were gleeful, and that the exercise was pay-back for some earlier 
slight, whether from the President or someone else.
  Mr. Speaker, thousands of my constituents have contacted me in the 
past two months, and by a recent margin of nine to one have made clear 
that they find the President's conduct wrong, as do I, but they do not 
want him impeached.
  Many favor alternative remedies: censure, rebuke or criminal or civil 
prosecution. All feel that a prolonged inquiry risks distracting the 
nation at a time of serious economic and international instability.
  But, as so often happens in the House, we were confronted with 
imperfect legislative choices. With reservations, I cast my vote for an 
inquiry of impeachment limited in time and scope so that Congress can 
fulfill its obligations under the Independent Counsel law and the 
Constitution, consider alternative sanctions, and conclude its review 
by year's end. This, I believe, was the more appropriate course for the 
House to take than an open-ended, wide-ranging inquiry as proposed by 
the Judiciary Committee majority.
  Regrettably, the vote was essentially partisan, and the atmosphere 
dramatically different from Congress' 1974 impeachment inquiry 
concerning President Nixon. At the time, I served as chief counsel of a 
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, and vividly recall a process which, at 
an early stage, generated widespread acceptance and an orderly 
transition of power.
  It saddens me greatly that I end my service in Congress as a 
participant in a process that hurts this institution, the office of the 
presidency and, most important, the American people.
  I've said in other forums that not only is the President on trial--so 
is Congress. Unless we show the nation we can trust and respect each 
other, the nation will not trust and respect the result of our inquiry.
  Mr. Speaker, nearly six years ago, I stood in this well with other 
members of the newly-elected 103rd Congress to take the oath of office 
from Speaker Tom Foley. As all who have shared that exhilarating 
experience, it opened an important and wonderful chapter in my life--a 
chapter which I will soon bring to a close.
  January 1993, opened auspiciously for the nation. A new Congress and 
new President had been elected and a new approach to governing--to 
addressing important economic and fiscal issues--was blossoming. 
History, of course, will evaluate whether we have acquitted ourselves 
well in the six years since. To be sure, Congress and the President 
made significant gains in some policy areas, particularly in working to 
achieve the first balanced budget in a generation. In other critical 
policy areas, nothing was done. And, regrettably, in some areas, 
efforts to roll back significant gains, particularly for women, have 
gathered momentum.
  Having campaigned on a platform of ``prochoice, pro change,'' I came 
to the nation's capital with strong views, experience in both the 
public and private sectors, and a determination to ``represent'' the 
needs of my newly-created defense-dependent district. During my 
campaign I said I would seek a seat on the House Armed Services 
Committee, a request for which I received the strong support of my dear 
friend Les Aspin, the Committee's then-chairman and soon-to-be 
Secretary of Defense. Later, with the help of Democratic Leader Richard 
Gephardt, I was able to realize another goal: to serve on the Permanent

[[Page H10641]]

Select Committee on Intelligence, a committee, again, with relevance to 
my district's interests.
  I call California's 36th District the ``aerospace capital of the 
world.'' In 1993, it was suffering from deep cuts in defense spending 
as a result of the end of the cold war. Unemployment was in double 
digits, particularly among skilled professionals, as defense firms cut 
back jobs and programs. The patriots who won the cold war were 
themselves out in the cold.
  Helping to rebuild the local and regional economy was the greatest 
challenge I faced as the new representative. Given the staggering size 
of the federal deficit and urgent calls for spending on education, 
technology, health care and the environment, it was clear that we would 
not restore defense spending to the levels experienced during the 
height of the cold war.
  Instead, we needed a two-prong strategy: first, to support core 
research and development and procurement priorities that would win the 
next war, and second, to help aerospace companies diversify into 
growing commercial sectors like advanced transportation, 
communications, green technologies, and medical research.
  Many of the cutting-edge technologies were then, as now, developed in 
the 36th District. And, key to retaining this activity was our 
successful effort to keep the Los Angeles Air Force Base and its Space 
and Missile Systems Center headquartered in the South Bay. SMC spends 
over $5 billion a year to play and procure space systems for the Air 
Force and coordinates much of the defense R&D done by local firms.
  In addition, I am proud to have been an advocate of weapons programs 
that meet our nation's future defense requirements--programs like the 
C-17 heavy airlift cargo plane, the B-2 stealth bomber, the FA-18 E/F, 
the MILSTAR satellite, and others which enhanced our armed forces' 
warfighting capability.
  We also recognized that diversification of the industrial base was 
essential to coping with the vicissitudes of the budget cycles, and 
assuring that human and plant resources would be there should we need 
to convert to defense use again.
  The recent economic turnabout suggests we made the right decisions.
  We helped commercialize defense technologies through programs like 
the Technology Reinvestment Program--TRP. In fact, the first TRP grant 
was awarded to a Torrance firm named Hi-Shear Technology, which used 
rocket technology to power a miniaturized ``jaws of life.'' That 
product would later be used to rescue individuals trapped in the debris 
of the Oklahoma City federal building bombing.
  Developing such ``dual use'' technologies not only revolutionized the 
local economy, but also brought to the marketplace advances that have 
benefitted the nation as a whole. Direct satellite television, for 
example, was spawned by defense contractors like Hughes, one of my 
corporate constituents in El Segundo. Another constituent, Allied 
Signal, has utilized defense technologies to develop and manufacture 
ultra-low emission, low-cost electrical generators.
  Northrop Grumman has developed the lightweight, fuel efficient 
Advanced Technology Transit Bus (ATTB). And, of course, the Western 
Regional Law Enforcement and Technology Center, sited at my request in 
El Segundo, identifies technologies that can be, and have been, applied 
by law enforcement agencies nationwide to solving crimes.
  Technological advances associated with defense satellites have also 
found commercial applications. TRW has designed and launched a number 
of NASA satellites that have helped map our globe, discover valuable 
resources, anticipate climatic changes, identify weather patterns, and 
improve our communication capabilities worldwide.
  Commercialization was augmented by policies that capitalized on the 
South Bay's position as a gateway to the economies of the Pacific Rim 
and Southern Hemisphere. Trade is responsible for an estimated 6.3% of 
the LA basin's economy, compared to half that level in 1980. And, 
according to a recent study by the US Department of Commerce, the 
region experienced a 22.1% growth in exports between 1993 and 1996. In 
1996 alone, the LA-Long Beach metropolitan region exported $24.4 
billion in merchandise. Exports to Canada grew by 39% and to Mexico by 
36%.
  In the 36th Congressional District, the percentage of annual trade-
related growth is high and many thousands of jobs--including thousands 
of union jobs--are associated with both the manufacturing of goods for 
export and the movement of goods through the Port of LA, Los Angeles 
International Airport and the nearby Port of Long Beach.
  The prospect for increased growth with our Asian trading partners 
remain positive and South and Central America are expected to become an 
increasingly important part of the burgeoning world trade picture. Los 
Angeles is making significant capital investments in its port 
infrastructure, including the Alameda Corridor, in order to meet future 
demand growth--investments I helped secure in partnership with local, 
state and the federal governments.
  Given the importance of trade to the local South Bay and LA 
economies, it was only natural for my constituents to expect a strong 
advocate in Washington. I have tried to be that advocate. I voted for 
GATT, voted twice to continue most-favored-nation trade status for the 
People's Republic of China, and voted for innumerable trade and tax law 
changes and other policies that enhance our competitive position in the 
world. More recently, over the understandable concerns of some of my 
constituents, I voted for the measure granting the President fast track 
consideration of trade agreements he negotiates with our foreign 
trading partners.
  Unemployment in the South Bay is now 5.3 percent and declining. The 
number of jobs is expected to continue to grow, showing a 17% increase 
between 1993, when the worst of the aerospace industry's downsizing hit 
the area, and 2005.
  Thus, I am most proud of my role in helping diversify and 
commercialize defense technologies, which has offset the loss of jobs 
in the defense sector.
  My memberships on the House National Security Committee and the 
Select Permanent Committee on Intelligence also afforded me 
opportunities to shape defense policies in anticipation of our nation's 
security requirements for the 21st century. My focus on defense reform 
initiatives and the revolution in military affairs has been both 
interesting intellectually and challenging to implement. I believe more 
focus is needed on the long-term consequences of some of the policy and 
budget proposals considered by Congress. The two-year election cycle in 
the House and the annual appropriations cycle discourage forward 
thinking, with serious downside consequences.
  I believe the urge among some of my House colleagues to re-segregate 
by gender basic training in the military is particularly short-sighted, 
as it is unwarranted. Not only do such proposals victimize women and us 
an opportunity to use our full potential to serve our country in the 
Armed Forces, they also jeopardize military readiness by micromanaging 
decision about training which should properly be made by the military 
services. In my view, what is driving the debate in Congress is not an 
appreciation for future readiness needs, but an outdated paternalism.
  In fact, one of the disappointments during my tenure in Congress has 
been the increasingly successful efforts to roll back Constitutionally-
protected rights, particularly reproductive rights.
  Nineteen-ninety-three has been dubbed the ``year of the woman'' 
following the 1992 elections, and the 103rd Congress passed a number of 
significant measures affecting women and families. The first bill 
signed into law by President Clinton was the Family and Medical Leave 
Act. I cosponsored it, voted for it, and was thrilled to be part of 
that landmark event.
  We also reversed a number of bans on funding for abortions, 
particularly for indigent women who previously had been denied their 
Constitutional right to choose because of their inability to pay.
  The 104th and 105th Congresses have, in contrast, been the most anti-
choice Congresses since the Supreme Court's 1972 Roe versus Wade 
decision. In the last four years, Congress has taken 98 votes on 
choice-related issues. Abortion opponents have won 82 of them--84 
percent. Hopefully, the trend will soon be reversed.
  The other major disappointment during my tenure has been the 
deteriorating tone of debate in the House and the increased 
partisanship that characterizes consideration of nearly every issue. 
Last year's balanced budget bill was an exception--but an increasingly 
rare exception.
  Our last major debate on one of the House's few enumerated 
responsibilities under the Constitution--initiating an impeachment 
inquiry of the president--was particularly saddening. Sitting on the 
House floor for the entire proceeding, the sense of gleefulness I 
sensed from some of my colleagues was particuarly misplaced.
  I fear that Congress' ability to address the major issues of the 
nation is in serious decline. Rather than seeking accommodation between 
legitimate yet differing views and ideologies, some in this 
institution--still a minority--have sought to drive even greater wedges 
between people--wedges to the detriment of the nation and this 
institution. Partisanship has replaced policy as the focus of 
attention.
  In combination with this Congress' failure to fix a broken campaign 
finance system, good and decent people will be discouraged from running 
for office, especially if future Congress' are believed to be as 
unproductive as this one.
  Lack of program also wastes the dedication and hard work of so many 
Members and staff

[[Page H10642]]

who currently serve. Indeed, the House is an institution that works 
best because of the personal relationship it is built on. And, I have 
been blessed because of the many friends I have made here--friends from 
both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, my favorite rhetorical question is to ask why a middle-
aged mother of four would run for Congress. My answer: to add 
something.
  During my six years, I believe I have added something. To be sure, I 
would have liked to accomplish more and to have generated more 
bipartisanship. I often say that life has many chapters and, as one 
closes, another opens--sometimes unexpectedly, even serendipitously.
  I want to thank all my colleagues who have made my tenure here 
exciting and rewarding. From the two speakers under whom I've served, 
Tom Foley and Newt Gingrich, to my many colleagues past and present on 
the committees on which I've served, to those I have met through the 
variety of ad hoc caucuses and coalitions that arise during the course 
of governing--thank you all. To my superb staff, you demonstrate 
everyday what public service is all about. To my family and especially 
my husband, Sidney, you are, in every way, the wind beneath my wings.
  Serving here has been a labor of love. And I thank the citizens of 
California's 36th Congressional District for the extraordinary 
opportunity to represent you.

                          ____________________