Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, I want to express my appreciation to the hard work and leadership of its chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and also to the very distinguished ranking member. Serving on this subcommittee, one gains an even greater appreciation for the great loss that this body will experience when the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] retires. So I thank him for his leadership. I also want to recognize the professionalism of the staff on this bill. Debbie Weatherley, Loretta Beaumont, Chris Topik, Joel Kaplan and Angie Perry. Barbara Wainman, the chairman's personal assistant, Curt Dodd, and of course Del Davis, who has to assume a Herculean load, given the fact that the minority staff are so few in number with so many responsibilities. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman has said, this is clearly one of the most important subcommittees in the entire Congress. We have some very controversial issues, though, and we are going to spend most of our time on those controversial issues. But it should be expressed that there are some very fine things in this bill. For example, $136 million increase for the Everglades; a $78 million increase for the national parks; $42 million more for operating the Fish and Wildlife Service. There are a great many needs within those organizations. I will not take the time to go into them, but we are addressing those needs. There is a $16 million increase for natural resource science research by the U.S. Geological Service. These things go unmentioned because we focus exclusively on the controversial issues. Thirty-one million in program increases go to native Americans. Very much deserved. The Indian Health Service will bring more Indian health care to communities. In fact, we are providing modular dental units on reservations where dental services are sorely lacking. But, of course, there are some deficiencies in this bill, at least in my opinion, and in the opinion of the ranking minority member. Weatherization assistance is an example. I wish we could do more in the way of weatherization assistance because we decrease it by over $30 million. The automobile fuel cell research, I think, has a great deal of potential, which may not be realized because we are cutting back on that almost entirely. That has potential for meeting the clean air standards. But most importantly we are going to focus on the NEA and it needs to be focused on. It should be restored to its existing level of $99 million. The value of the logging subsidy to private timber companies is over $250 million a year. The taxpayer foots this bill to build roads in forest areas 87 percent of which would otherwise be uneconomical. They've built 378,000 miles of road. Fifty percent more road than in nonforest service lands roads that cause landslides, erosion and siltation of our streams. The National Endowment for the Arts deserves to be funded. Private timber companies don't.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Porter- Kennedy amendment because eliminating the logging road subsidy will stop those sales that lose the most money and are the most environmentally harmful. Logging road construction, particularly on steep, unstable slopes, dramatically increases the risk of landslides, erosion and siltation into streams. And this picture demonstrates what I am talking about. After the winter storms in the last 2 years in the Pacific Northwest, the Forest Service found in Idaho that 70 percent of the 422 landslides were associated with these Forest Service logging roads. Over two-thirds of the roads built in our national forests are logging roads constructed primarily to access timber sales. There is no good reason why the Forest Service should be in the business of constructing these roads on behalf of the timber companies. The Forest Service should follow the lead of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management and require the timber companies to build their own roads at their own cost. These companies can figure out where it is economical to build a road and make a timber sale and where it is not. By building these roads for these companies, the Forest Service facilitates logging in many areas that would not otherwise be profitable. Last year 87 percent of the logging operations in our national forests lost money for the Forest Service. Why? Because we are building roads for timber companies to log in areas that should never have been logged and are not economical. As a result of this backward policy, making our national forests into a logging highway, we now have 378,000 miles of road crisscrossing the acres of forest not designated as wilderness. Our forests contain enough road to circle the globe 14 times over. Imagine that. That is equivalent to one and a half miles of road per square mile of land. It is 50 percent more road than in non-Forest Service land. This amendment is not going to stop roads from being built in our national forests, but it will stop taxpayers from footing the bill for timber roads. Support the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we have to assume greater responsibility for and take greater leadership against the proliferation of land mines throughout the world. Land mines were responsible for one-third of all the casualties in the Vietnam war. Likewise in the Persian Gulf war, they were responsible for one-third of the casualties. Already there have been 284 casualties due to land mines in Bosnia. But it is not just professional military forces that suffer from these horrible instruments of death. Last year over 26,000 people were killed or maimed by land mines. That is one person every 20 minutes. Most of these victims were not members of the military. Most of them were children. Many of these children are victims of wars long ended, of conflicts long forgotten, but land mines can stay active for over 50 years, Mr. Speaker. They will kill children whose parents are not even born yet. And even though some countries have more active land mines in their territory than people, we continue to plant 2 million more land mines every year. It is time to ban them.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I actually rise in support of this budget agreement, but I particularly want to emphasize one aspect of it that has not gotten sufficient attention. All of us are concerned about the fact that there are about 41 million people who are uninsured in this country who cannot get the health care that they need. Now 80 percent of them are working, they are working; that is the main point, and they are working for small employers. But we cannot figure a way to get affordable, accessible health insurance to them. The Fawell bill, which is included in the reconciliation bill, is the way to do that. It enables them to pool their employees so that they have leverage with insurance companies and they can purchase insurance for the first time for a large part of these 41 million uninsured people. Most of them are children. So I would hope that we would do this. It helps labor unions, it helps small businesses, it helps trade associations, it helps the American people who desperately need affordable health insurance. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with almost all of the objections that have been raised. I do object to the conclusion. I do think we ought to vote for this budget agreement. It moves us forward. I think we have made a major step in moving from an annual bookkeeping exercise to one where we debate real national priorities. We are going to have an opportunity to improve it on the Senate side, in the conference agreement, and certainly the President is going to insist that many of the Democrats' most serious objections are taken care of in the conference agreement. I think that we ought to vote for this budget agreement, for this reconciliation package, and we certainly need to include the Fawell amendment in it if we want to really address people who need help with their affordable health insurance.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is the bill that says that it only applies if the life of the woman would be in danger. This is the bill I was given, and it does not apply to rape.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, how arrogant for comfortable male Members of Congress to stand here in such self-righteous judgment over the lives of women who choose to serve our country in the military. We ought to be honest about it. Let us be honest about it. What this bill does is to prevent women, even victims of rape, from being able to exercise the same civil rights that they are granted by law in this country. We are punishing them for choosing to serve in the military, and we know from recent experience that this is not an uncommon situation. Every one of my colleagues know that they are being hypocritical. If it was their daughter serving in the military who was the victim of a rape, they would not stand in such self-righteous judgment over her. Grant women who choose to serve our country the same rights that they would be entitled to as American citizens.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, because the Committee on Rules had an opportunity to rectify an injustice. By choosing not to rectify it, it perpetuated it. The gentleman who just spoke said that those who defend our country are entitled to the respect that they deserve. But what about after they have served our country? Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon, the Department of Defense is the only large organization in America that once its employees reach the age of 65, they become ineligible for that employer's health care. They become ineligible for CHAMPUS, they become ineligible for TRICARE, and they are told that the only thing they can do is go to a military treatment facility and wait at the end of the line until everyone else has been served, and only if there is no one else waiting for health care can they then be served. It is wrong. It is unfair. We have a solution to it. The chairman of the Committee on Rules is a sponsor of my legislation that allows Medicare military retirees to join the FEHBP. I thought he understood the situation. Apparently he does not understand the situation because if he did, he would want to rectify it, I am sure. But the Committee on Rules, in reporting out this rule, chose not to address it in the way that makes the most sense, which is to make military retirees eligible for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. There is no other way that military retirees can get decent, affordable, accessible health care. All we wanted to do was to demonstrate how it can be done in the most efficient manner. It would not have cost any money. It was the right thing to do. It should have been done. I urge a vote against the rule.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with Representatives Tom Davis and Frank Wolf to pay tribute to Dr. Robert ``Bud'' Spillane, a distinguished educator and retiring superintendent of Fairfax County public schools. Dr. Spillane has managed, with great proficiency, the Nation's 12th largest school system, which encompasses 150,000 students, 25,000 employees, 225 facilities, and a $41.2 million budget. During his 12 years with Fairfax County, Dr. Spillane has fostered and improved the school system's national reputation for excellence while the county has experienced growing student diversity. Ninety percent of all seniors take college entrance exams. Scores are well above national averages and dropout rates are low. Dr. Spillane has instituted rigorous academic standards and established high expectations for all students, lengthened the school day for secondary students, and focused on improving programs for early primary children. Dr. Spillane developed a teacher performance evaluation system, encouraged sitebased management initiatives and greater accountability measures. He cultivated strong support for education in the business community, which has led to expanded school partnerships. He launched an internationally recognized high school for science and technology. During a period of budgetary austerity in 1991, Dr. Spillane substantially reduced the number of central office personnel while improving organizational efficiency. More recently, he increased public school choice by fostering increased focus on magnet schools at the elementary level and other special programs in secondary schools. Dr. Spillane is the author of many papers and professional articles and a frequent speaker on educational issues. He has won many prestigious awards, including the 1995 Virginia Superintendent of the Year Award and the 1995 National Superintendent of the Year Award. He is currently in the process of writing a book tentatively titled, ``The School Superintendent of the Future,'' for Aspen Publishers. Mr. Speaker, parents, teachers, and former students wish Dr. Spillane the very best in all his future endeavors and share my appreciation for his dedication and service to the people of Fairfax County.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 206 on H.R. 985 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 204 on H.R. 1057 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 205 on H.R. 1058 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 207 on House Joint Resolution 56, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is counterproductive, and, in fact, in many ways it is un-American, because we are the world's leader economically, we are the world's leader in terms of setting social trends, we are the world's leader in terms of showing the wisdom and maturity that the rest of the world expects from us and this amendment weakens our leadership capacity. To cut the State Department is an implication that they are not doing their job. But is not the proof in the pudding? Is not the proof of whether they are doing their job the view that other countries have of us, the extent to which they look to us for guidance, not just in terms of military judgments but more importantly, in terms of the economic judgments that open up markets for our free enterprise system and our competitively priced products. We are now in a global economy, a global economy in which the United States has the major stake. In fact, the United States has the greatest interest in this global economy because we have the most productive capacity right now for what the rest of the world wants. We do not have enough of a market within our country to maintain the economic growth that we depend upon for our quality of life, so we need to expand market opportunities around the world. To do so, it will not be the U.S. Government that is going to be investing the majority of resources, it is not U.S. Government personnel who will be directly responsible for accomplishing this national objective. It is the private sector. It is corporations, it is individual entrepreneurs. But they desperately need people in foreign countries, in our embassies that know the country, that can bail them out of problems that they might encounter, that in fact will represent our economic interests in a mature, in a responsible, and in a professional manner. That is the job of the State Department. They do it very well. They do not do it as well as they should be able to do it today, because we have cut 3,000 people already out of the State Department. If my colleagues want to find out what the effect of that is, they do not have to go to the families of State Department personnel who may have lost their jobs or may have retired early, but go to the executives of our corporations who are involved in international trade and they will tell you they need more help in American embassies, they need more consulates, they need a State Department that is growing at the pace that our economy is growing, they need a State Department that realizes the importance of the global economy and realizes the importance of American leadership within international economies. How counterproductive could we be to cripple this essential agency of American interests, these committed professionals who are doing the job that we depend upon? I just cannot imagine that Congress would go along with this shortsighted view. But beyond the economic considerations, think of the hundreds of thousands of young Americans who have died in wars, some wars that could have been ended earlier, some wars that never should have begun. We owe it to them to make sure that we avoid that kind of bloodshed in the future, to make sure we avoid those diplomatic failures, to make sure, in fact, that the 21st century is a time of peace and prosperity. And as important as the Defense Department is, it is not the Defense Department that is going to achieve that goal to the extent that the State Department will be able to achieve it if they have adequate resources. Because knowledge leads to understanding, which leads to respect, which leads to appreciation, which leads to friendship. And it is that global friendship that serves our national interests and will serve the interests of our children and our grandchildren who otherwise may have to risk their lives because of failed diplomacy. We cannot afford failed diplomacy. We cannot afford not to have the professionals, the people who are dedicated to American ideals in other countries around the world. Why we would cut the State Department more after we have already cut it so badly is beyond me and I hope far beyond the wisdom of this Congress. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues in this body to support the peace and prosperity that is a direct result of global economic interpendency and vote ``no'' on the Sanford amendment--and to do so overwhelmingly.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to rise today in appreciation of Chief Bankruptcy Judge Martin V.B. Bostetter, Jr. and to introduce legislation naming the U.S. Courthouse on South Washington Street in Alexandria in his honor. Chief Judge Bostetter was born on March 11, 1926, in Baltimore, MD, and attended Mount Vernon High School in Fairfax County. During World War II, he served in the U.S. Navy and then attended the University of Virginia where he obtained his bachelor of arts degree in 1950 and his Latin bachelor of laws degree in 1952. Since 1952, his entire legal career has occurred within an eight block radius in Old Town Alexandria. He began the practice of law in the city of Alexandria, and in 1953, he was appointed special assistant to the city attorney, serving in the capacity of city prosecutor. He resigned that position in 1957 to become associate judge of the municipal court of the city of Alexandria, where he served for a period of 2 years, resigning in 1959. Judge Bostetter was appointed to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in 1959, and presently serves as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, having been appointed chief judge on February 1, 1985. He ranks among the longest sitting full-time bankruptcy judges in the United States. In 1959, Judge Bostetter established the First Bankruptcy Court in Alexandria, in the former Federal District courthouse--the very building he now occupies as chief judge of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Virginia, 38 years later. He has taken special interest and great pride in the ongoing renovation of this historic building and landmark. When Judge Bostetter first sat on the bench in 1959, there were approximately nine bankruptcy filings per month and the bankruptcy court had only one employee. He remained the only full time bankruptcy judge in the Alexandria Division from July 1959 until December 1994. During the late 1980's and early 1990's, he handled the caseload of approximately 2\1/2\ judges. During his service on the bench, Chief Judge Bostetter has seen the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia grow to three divisions with 5 full-time judges and staff, 90 employees in its clerk's office and averages of more than 2,600 bankruptcy filings per month. The Alexandria Division where he now sits has two full-time judges, 22 employees and averages approximately 790 bankruptcy filing per month. Chief Judge Bostetter has been a dedicated and loyal public servant serving the people of Virginia faithfully with honor, integrity, and distinction during his tenure as a bankruptcy judge. He has fulfilled his duties with a strong sense of fairness and pragmatism, while at the same time adhering to the constraints imposed by the bankruptcy code and related case law. Moreover, he has set very high standards for the lawyers who practice before him making those lawyers better prepared and more effective advocates for their respective client's interests. In addition to his responsibilities as a bankruptcy judge, Chief Judge Bostetter has served as a member of the Committee on Court Administration of the Judicial Conference of the United States from July 1, 1982, until it was dissolved by reorganization of the Judicial Conference in 1987. On October 16, 1984, he was elected by the Judicial Center, serving in that position until September 1987. He is a former member of the Transition Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. In 1986, he was appointed by Chief Justice Warren Burger as chairman of a committee to expand and improve the educational programs for all bankruptcy judges. Justice Rehnquist, upon assuming the position of the Chief Justice of the United States, reappointed him to continue as a chairman of that committee until his term expired in 1989. In addition, he was appointed to the State-Federal Judicial Relations Committee of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1991. In addition to his significant public service as a judge, Judge Bostetter has a strong record of civic contributions as well. He has served as president of the Alexandria Bar Association, president of the Alexandria Junior Chamber of Commerce, president and chairman of the board of the Alexandria Junior Chamber of Commerce, president and chairman of the board of the Alexandria Sertoma Club, president of the Alexandria Mental Health Association, and has also served on the boards of the Alexandria Hospital Corp., the Alexandria Mental Health Clinic, the Alexandria Community Chest, and the Alexandria Boys' Club. In 1959, the Alexandria Junior Chamber of Commerce awarded him the Distinguished Service Award as the ``Outstanding Young Man of the Year 1959'', and the Kiwanis Club of Alexandria designated him as an honorary member. In 1960, Judge Bostetter was nominated by the Alexandria Junior Chamber of Commerce as one of the Ten Outstanding Men of the United States for his work on the Juvenile Detention Commission.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment and in favor of the Campbell-Greenwood amendment because I, like my colleagues, love children and love families. I have five children of my own, my parents had seven children. Their parents had 14 children. But all those children were born into a world that is vastly different than the world that we are talking about and that would be affected by this amendment. We in this Nation are so blessed with such prosperity and high living standards that it is often very difficult to relate to people that are born into a world of such abject poverty and desperation that parents would be willing to sell their children into a life of virtual slave labor or prostitution. How can life be so cheap? How can suffering and human degradation be so tolerated? It is largely because people in that other world have so little control over their lives because they have so little ability to control the size and the timing of their families. Ironically, this amendment further limits that control over their lives. This amendment in effect diminishes the value of those children's lives, when we have a moral responsibility to be increasing, enhancing the value of children's lives, and that is what family planning information is all about. With proper education, those in developing countries can plan their families just as we in the United States do. It is unconscionable as leaders of the most prosperous, blessed Nation on Earth that we would deny these vital resources to the least fortunate people on Earth. Yet that is precisely what this amendment does. This, the Mexico City policy that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] wants, restricts funding to groups who offer reproductive educational services to families in need of those services. We decided in February that denying those funds had a negative impact on population control efforts internationally and that decreasing family planning funding increases the number of abortions. This has not changed since our vote in February. Mr. Chairman, we need to understand that family planning in this other world can prevent about 10,000 deaths that are due to pregnancy complications, low birth weight babies born to women who are neither ready nor desirous of having children. Defeat the Smith amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against this bill and against the underlying policies and assumptions that are included in it and, by implication, in favor of the Hamilton amendment that has been offered but not voted on as yet. Mr. Chairman, there are good reasons why the President will veto this bill if the language of the gentleman from New York is included in it, and they are substantive reasons. Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to get some notches in the belt of the Republican Party, which apparently is still intent on showing that they can beat up on the Federal Government, that they can eliminate agencies, that they can eliminate functions and that, by implication, what the Government is doing is wrong and ought to be in the word of the chairman ``abolished.'' The fact is that in this case what the Government is doing is terribly important and should be supported. The language of the gentleman from New York is an attempt to micromanage our foreign policy and would specify that several agencies be abolished. Their functions would be transferred over to the State Department, but in many ways the esprit de corps, the achievements, the mission, the effectiveness of these agencies would be badly damaged at best and at worst, last forever. One of the agencies that I am talking about is the agency that provides aid to underdeveloped and developing countries. The Agency for International Development has shown tremendous progress in expanding the global economy and in creating customers for our American companies and products by enabling people to come up with the means to purchase our products and to enhance their quality of life. Most of their aid is returned to our country many times over, not to mention the basic humanitarian functions that they perform for people suffering in the threes of hunger, poverty, and desperation. Another agency that this bill would attempt to abolish is the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Of all functions within the Government to want to abolish, an agency that is addressing terrorism, that is addressing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, chemical and biological warfare, the most immediate, real threats to our well-being should be the last one we would want to disband. This agency has been extremely effective in addressing those threats, and yet, for some reason, the Republican Party wants to make another notch on its belt by abolishing this essential agency. Likewise, the U.S. Information Agency, which is the antidote we have for the kind of propaganda that has led to the worst violence that has occurred in modern times. It was in large part the State-controlled media in Yugoslavia that spurred people into unbridled aggression: that motivated the Serbs to attack the Bosnian people with fierce brutality. This aggression was spurred on by the kind of propaganda that can occur when we do not have a professional, unbiased source of news that the U.S. Information Agency provides. Likewise with the slaughtering that occurred in Rwanda. Again, these kinds of things happen because we do not have adequate resources to put into the U.S. Information Agency and the Voice of America. I cannot imagine that the American people would want us to be abolishing these agencies with such an effective track record and such a needed role to perform around the world. This bill is more of this gun-slinging mentality where we are willing to shoot innocent victims purely to get another notch in our belt. Targeting and scoring hits on innocent, effective Government agencies purely for political purposes is wrong. It is irresponsible, and it is dangerous. But even going beyond this irresponsible motivation, this bill attempts to micromanage. It specifies what a very complex, indispensable Government function, particular undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries, stay and which go, and where they go. Mr. Chairman, this bill should not be supported. The Hamilton amendment is a better approach, and I urge Members to support the Hamilton amendment and oppose this bill. Amendment Offered by Mr. SKAGGS

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I urge this body to vote for the budget agreement as worked out between the leaders of our parties and the President of our country. The alternative to this budget agreement is not the ideal from the Democrats' perspective nor the ideal from the Republicans' perspective. The alternative is to go on fighting, to go on fighting every single appropriation bill, every single tax measure, to reach no resolution, to have the President veto many of them, to struggle over whether or not they will be overridden, and with every showdown will come the threat of another shutdown. That is not what we want, and I know it is not what the country wants. The Republicans wanted $220 billion of tax cuts over 5 years. What they got was $135 billion, half of that, and $35 billion of that amount has to go in to education tax credits and deductions, which was a Democratic priority. The Democrats wanted a lot more money for nondefense domestic discretionary spending. They did not get it, but they got $189 billion more than was included in the Republican budget resolution of last year. That is a substantial increase. Politics has got to be the art of compromise. Neither of us is going to get everything we want. But what the country wants is us to start working together in their interest. They want the Democrats to realize that it is not our money but their money over which we have stewardship. And they want the Republicans to understand that there is a responsible role for government in our lives, that government should be maintained, but that we should ensure that it is held accountable to be as efficient and as effective as possible. This budget accomplishes those objectives. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, no seniors would be affected, no people who are disabled, no one who would have difficulty in achieving an income. There are a lot of people in assisted housing that simply do not have the ability to support themselves because of disabilities, or because of age or whatever. This only applies to families that are able bodied, that have been able to use assisted housing for 5 years, and it also only applies, I would emphasize to the chairman and thank him for his kind words, it only applies if there are waiting lists. If there are no waiting lists, in other words, if there are no equally deserving families waiting to use that unit, it does not apply, so that it takes no assisted housing units off the market. All it does is to expand assisted housing to more people who are equally deserving.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his remarks, his insight and for sharing his experience with the Missouri Housing Authority with us. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, first of all, as the gentleman from Massachusetts suggested, there are some issues that need to be cleared up. My two friends and colleagues on my side have entered a good deal of rhetorical information into this debate. Some of it was not specific to this particular amendment, though, I would suggest. In the first place, we talk about punishing low-income families, and I would suggest to the gentleman from Massachusetts that while there are 1 million low-income families who are in publicly assisted housing, there are three times that many who are equally low-income who are not in publicly assisted housing. And if we are talking about punishing people, those people are effectively being punished by being denied assisted housing, and that is the purpose of this amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words, at which time I think we would conclude debate on this amendment. That would be my purpose.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. With that assurance, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman for a unanimous-consent request.