Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, so it is the gentleman's considered judgment that even though this amendment might pass in the House, that it might jeopardize final enactment of this bill? If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, that is an important consideration. I want to hear from my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], on the bill, but I will respond subsequently.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 51.

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, Federal low-income housing assistance programs were originally designed to be transitional, helping people find temporary, decent shelter. They were never intended to be permanent. The reality today, though, is that many families know no other experience than a public housing environment. Today, in too many cases this housing assistance is creating reverse incentives for its beneficiaries to improve their situation and become self-sufficient. According to HUD, 40 percent of the residents of public housing leave within 3 years, 31 percent leave within 10 years, and about one-third live in public housing for more than 10 years. This amendment will not affect the majority of residents, and it completely exempts the elderly and the handicapped. But because of the Federal budget constraints that have been imposed, we cannot increase the number of federally assisted low-income housing units. It is not going to happen. We need to determine how, though, we can justify extending indefinitely public housing assistance to residents who may be capable of improving their economic well-being while we deny others who are equally deserving. The fact is that there are three times as many people on waiting lists equally deserving as there are people in public-assisted housing units. Within my congressional district there is a 2-year waiting list and it has been closed, leaving thousands of families, equally deserving, unable to even apply. This is not fair. Across the country thousands of well-deserving and eligible families, many spending more than 50 percent of their income on substandard housing, have been told they have to wait at least 2 years, and then hopefully they can get on a waiting list. Mr. Chairman, we do not know what the total of such families are, precisely, but we know that in most cases waiting lists are closed. Let us be fair. Let us open up access to more deserving families. Across the Nation 13 million households were eligible to receive Federal housing assistance last year, slightly more than 4 million. Less than a third did receive such assistance. The amendment that I am offering gives local housing authorities the option, the option, it is up to them, to impose a 5-year time limit on those individuals and families who are not elderly, not disabled, and who are not already employed at least 20 hours a week. The amendment builds on the self-sufficiency contract that is part of this bill. Adoption of this amendment is going to enable local housing authorities to use an incentive to encourage tenants to use assisted housing in the way it was originally intended. Since housing assistance to some tenants could be limited to 5 years, a higher number of rental units can be recycled more frequently. Publicly assisted housing can be more accessible to more people. It is the fairest thing we can do. I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments on the underlying bill. They are not particularly pertinent to this particular amendment because this amendment opens up access to people. It only applies when there are equally deserving people who have not had the access to assisted housing, many of whom are paying 50 percent of their income. I would suggest to my colleague from New York, when he talks about handicapped people, and so on, being affected, they are all exempted from this amendment, the handicapped, the elderly. There are a number of exceptions. I would suggest to my colleague to read the amendment and he will be assured of that fact. Now, let me address myself to the comments of the chairman. The chairman suggested that passage of this bill might be jeopardized by inclusion of this amendment. I think this amendment might very well pass within the House, but he may very well be right and I would accept his judgment in terms of enactment. I want this bill to be enacted, and I would just like to take a couple of minutes to tell my colleagues why. I lost a very close friend in Alexandria who was a police officer. He was shot in a public housing project at a place, a unit, which had been dealing drugs for years. It was an intergenerational business, apparently. We were helpless to do anything about it. And I will never forget his wife at the hospital looking up to me and saying how will I ever tell his two sons that daddy will never come home again. And the reason that happened is because we did not act responsibly on publicly assisted housing. This does. The many screening and eviction procedures that are allowed under this bill are absolutely necessary, and the people that they benefit the most, the most, are people living in publicly assisted communities. They desperately need the housing authority to exercise responsible judgments and to exclude people who are going to tear down the quality of life for a lot of them, to exclude criminals and drug addicts and people who are drug dealers. That needs to be done. It will be done by this bill. There are a number of other provisions in this bill which make a lot of sense. They are more important than this particular provision, as important as I think this is. I will leave this at this, this amendment, but I would ask the gentleman from New York, if I do withdraw it at this time, would the gentleman attempt to get some type of pilot demonstration program within the conference that might enable us to get some experience on how such an amendment would work?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate all the parties that were involved in the budget agreement reached over the weekend. While many of the details still have to be worked out, and of course many will say the devil is in the details. I think Members of this body would be hard-pressed to speak against a budget agreement that for the first time since 1969 gives us a real chance to balance the budget, to get our fiscal house in order. I would have preferred that we postpone some of the tax cuts pay for more of them through savings in the tax Code. We are doing much of that. Each of us may find, as I say, particulars in programs that we think may be more endangered than before the budget agreement, but that is a product of compromise. Politics is the art of compromise, and it is about time we were able to get together to work in a constructive, cooperative spirit. I congratulate the President and I congratulate the leaders of the House and Senate on both sides for coming forward with that spirit and getting the kinds of results they have. If we oppose this, we invite far more harmful consequences to ourselves and particularly to future generations than any of those items we specifically object to could ever cause. Let us not blow this opportunity to do what is in everyone's best long-term interests. The bipartisan budget agreement will allow us to reach balance in the year 2002 without wreaking any havoc on the most important domestic discretionary programs, nor will it wreak havoc on the Defense Department budget. We as Democrats can be proud of this agreement, since it will allow the Federal Government to continue to be an agent of positive change. We will be able to expand health care coverage to 5 million more needy underinsured children. We will be able to restore the safety net to legal resident aliens who were disenfracthised under last year's welfare bill, and we will be able to go home and justify our actions to a public that is too often skeptical that we are not doing anything that is in their best interests. This agreement builds on the accomplishments of past deficit reduction efforts, most notably the 1993 deficit reduction package. Since adoption of that 1993 budget package, the deficit has been reduced 4 consecutive years to where it is now the lowest since 1981. It is down to $74 billion. This past year it was $107 billion; now we are talking about $74 billion. That is phenomenal, given where we started, from $290 billion in 1992. The tax increases and the spending cuts enacted in 1993, contrary to much criticism at the time, has kept interest rates and unemployment low and the economy booming. The stock market has gone through the ceiling because they have to put their money on their analysis of where the future of this economy is going. That is why the stock market is booming. They see a rosy outlook. They know that our budget is in control. Now, we hope that this agreement will also lay the foundation for more fundamental entitlement program reforms that must be dealt with before us baby boomers begin to retire. But this agreement deserves our support. The President and the leaders of the House and Senate deserve our support. We congratulate them. At this point I would like to yield to my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It is long passed due, and it is entirely appropriate that this body pass such a resolution because Mobutu was able to stay in power. We established his power base, we sustained him in power for years, long past any time when he could allege to be a legitimate leader of his country. We did that because we assumed he was anticommunist. And so through our misguided ideological objectives, we established in power a leader whose sole objective was his own self- serving interest. And so over the last quarter century what he has done is to extract the natural resources of his country, he has exploited its people, he has acquired immense wealth, he has used that wealth to spend most of his time in his European villas while the people of his country suffer. Mr. Speaker, it is long past time when this country should have cut bait on this guy. I am extremely pleased that the people of Zaire have risen and are about to depose him. It is now time for the United States to play a constructive role in that transition. This resolution outlines that constructive role, and I strongly support it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for raising these very important issues to recognize the importance of Earth Day. It behooves the Congress to look back at history before there was an environmental sensitivity. We had a lake in Ohio that actually caught on fire. We had air that was not fit to breathe. We have created greenhouse gas emissions that have led to a global warming that one day will inundate several very populous islands. The Seychelles, for example, inevitably will go below sea level because of the greenhouse gas emissions that have resulted in the warming of our entire planet. The ozone layer has been depleted because of chlorofluorocarbons carbons. We have an area the size of North America in the Antarctic, and while it may not concern people that penguins are not able to reproduce like they were, the fact is that it is a warning to all of us the effects of ignoring our environment. In this country, we find that children's cancer is the second leading cause of death among children, and we know that 80 percent of the cause is environmentally related, 90 percent worldwide. It is because of pesticides in foods that children eat. It is because of the toxic chemicals that we put in our ground and on our grass that children play on and touch and get into their skin. It is because of the particles that they breathe. It is because of some of the water that they drink. And so, as a result, we have despoiled this planet in many ways. And it certainly behooves us not to look back at what we have accomplished, but to look even more forward. There are a lot of things that need to be done. For one thing, we ought to be measuring the toxicity level of environmental risks as they would effect children, not fully grown adults. And so we have a lot to do, and I know that the gentleman from New Jersey will be in the lead in accomplishing those objectives. Hopefully, it will be sooner rather than later. Hopefully, not too late. But Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise another equally compelling issue. It is an international issue, but it is one that has immediate effects upon our own population and our responsible role in the world. And so I would like to go down to the podium and address the House from there. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to speak about is child labor, the exploitation of children for profit. This week is the 2-year anniversary of the death of a real leader in the crusade against child labor. He was murdered because of that crusade. His name is Iqbal Masih. Let me begin by telling you a little bit about the life of Iqbal Masih and how he became a crusader against child labor. Iqbal grew up Muritke, Pakistan. Iqbal's family lived in poverty, as do millions of other families in Pakistan. Clearly it was very difficult for Iqbal's parents to scrape together enough to feed their children. By the time Iqbal was 4, his older brother was ready to marry. It should have been a time of great celebration. Perhaps if by accident of birth Iqbal were born into a different family, one in the United States or a country as prosperous as ours, with the kind of employment opportunities that we afford, perhaps your family or mine, then Iqbal would have taken part in the ceremony and celebrated the marriage of his brother. But Iqbal was not born into such a family. Iqbal did not get to take part in his brother's wedding. His family could not afford the wedding. They needed $12 to properly wed their son, and they did not have it. So how did Iqbal's family pay for the wedding? Did Iqbal's father look for more work? Did they try to find a cheaper way to finance the wedding? No. Instead they took out a loan for the $12. But they did not have a house to put a second mortgage on. They did not have a pension plan to borrow against. So they used their son Iqbal. They traded Iqbal to the moneylender as collateral on a $12 loan. The moneylender was not a banker merely looking for insurance on his loan. In fact, Iqbal's parents were never expected to pay the loan. Iqbal was expected to pay off the loan. But how does a 4-year-old pay off his parents' debts? Well, he is forced to work. Iqbal had become a bonded laborer. Bonded labor is one step removed from child slavery. The moneylender, now Iqbal's master, could trade or sell Iqbal to others. He exercised complete control over Iqbal. Because Iqbal's small fingers were nimble, he was forced to tie knots in handmade carpets. Carpet manufacturers prefer to get children when they are young. As one manufacturer said, their hands are nimbler and their eyes are better, too. They are faster when they are small. They are also easier to control. Because the carpet manufacturer controls what or even if these children eat, he can easily control them. Some manufacturers are not so subtle. Many of them chain the children to their looms. They must eat, work, and sleep tied to their loom. At 4 years old, all these children know of the world is their village. They probably do not even know the name of their village. They are often taken hundreds of miles away. Even if they were lucky enough to escape, they would not know where to go. And even if they knew where to go, corrupt government officials merely return them to their masters. So how do you escape from bonded labor? Iqbal was told he could escape if he raised enough money to pay off his parents' $12 loan. The carpet manufacturer said he would deduct Iqbal's salary from the amount Iqbal's parents owed. The carpet manufacturer also added any of Iqbal's expenses to the amount his parents owed. These expenses included room and board. Iqbal had to pay for the privilege of sleeping chained to a loom and fines for any mistakes that 4-year-old boy made. The carpet manufacturer also charged interest on the loan. Within a few years, Iqbal's $12 debt had increased 2,100 percent. Iqbal tied tiny knots for as much as 20 hours a day. He usually worked 6 days a week, and frequently all 7 days of the week he would work. He was beaten when he made any mistakes. Iqbal worked for 6 years as a bonded laborer until he was freed with the help of the Bonded Labor Liberation Front, a human rights group. Iqbal was only 10 when he escaped. He then traveled around the world speaking out about the horrors that he and millions of other children experienced. His efforts focused international attention on the problem of child labor. Because of his efforts on behalf of other child laborers, Iqbal won the Reebok Human Rights Award in 1994. Although a hero to other children, Iqbal made many enemies. Carpet manufacturers had to pay bigger bribes to continue business as usual. They were losing money. Iqbal returned to his home village of Muritke, Pakistan in April 1995. On Easter Sunday, 2 years ago yesterday, Iqbal was riding his bicycle with two friends when he was shot and killed. Iqbal was 12 years old, 12 years old. Mr. Speaker, the International Labor Organization estimates that worldwide there is as many as 200 million children working in Africa, one quarter of all the children are working; in Asia, 18 percent; Latin America, 7 percent. Child labor takes many forms. The worst is bonded labor and indentured servitude like Iqbal Masih endured. Children also work in more traditional manufacturing centers, such as factories. Some children are minors. Some work on fishing rigs in the ocean. Some work on the streets shining shoes or selling their bodies. They work as glassblowers and as carpenters. They sort hazardous recyclables, like broken batteries soaked in acid and used hospital syringes dirty with blood. Children have little resistance to adults that seek to exploit them. Unfortunately, almost invariably, children wind up at the bottom of all national agendas for political and social action. I want people to focus on this picture. It is of a little girl at a shoe shine stand in Ecuador. She is less than 4 years old. She represents the millions of children who work on the streets of the world cities. The cycle begins when a farm family moves to the city in search of work. They soon find that the city is not what they expected. They lack the skills necessary for a good job and find city life far more expensive than they had planned on. The family's mother may find work as a maid, but typically the father turns to alcohol or leaves the family. If children are surrounded by models of chronic inactivity and frustration at home, they may even be attracted to the excitement of the street. Children are sent onto streets to work or beg. While seeking work, they are easy prey. They are given a job like this girl shining shoes. They must turn over all the money they receive to an older child who then gives them a small portion as salary. The older child is equivalent to a pimp raking in profits by exploiting a small army of children. Frequently, though, the older child is in a similar relationship with even older children who may control large groups of these child pimps. Those that are beggars may be maimed to make them look more miserable and helpless than other beggars. As the children grow older, they may realize they can make more money by theft or by exploiting children younger than themselves. Street life cannot be easy for anyone, especially a 4-year-old girl. Tragically, when these children need to be thrown a life preserver, they often turn to drugs. The common drug for them today is glue. When they are hungry or very cold, they sniff glue to kill the pain. After sniffing glue the children stagger. They slur their speech, and their eyes swell and turn red. Soon they have irreversible brain damage. While these tragic lives may sound parallel to life on our own city streets, there is an important distinction: The role of corrupt government officials. In Brazil, one counselor said if a boy does not have enough money to give a cop, he may beat him. With the proper payoff a kid can keep out of the reform inventory or he can keep his place on the park bench for another night. I would like to show the next picture, which is of a boy in Aligarth, India. It is a town in the Providence of Uttar Pradesh on the border of Nepal. This picture was presented to the Committee on International Relations last year by a constituent of mine Ms. Francoise Remington, director of a nonprofit group called Forgotten Children. Uttar Pradesh is known for its production of brass and other metal products. This boy is making tiny padlocks. The average pay for children in the metal industry is $6 a month. The children work 60-hour work weeks. The children are recruited by middle men called dalals, who are paid by the thekedar, or contractor, who prefers children because they are so easy to control. Although most metal factories claim to be family businesses to skirt India's scant child labor regulations, there are virtually no incidences of actual family metal shops in this part of India. These children remove molten metal from molds near furnaces. These children work with furnaces at temperatures of 2,000 degrees. Burns are a constant danger. Children also work at electroplating, polishing, and applying chemicals to metal. This child is polishing padlocks on a small grindstone. Fumes and metal dust are constantly inhaled by these children, causing tuberculosis and respiratory illnesses. Child labor in India is still the norm rather than the exception. There are about 250 million children in India. Estimates of the amount of children working in India ranges from 44 to 100 million. The Indian Government admits to at least 17 million. The next picture is of Silgi. She is sewing soccer balls. Nearby Pakistan, nearby to India, has similar problems with child labor. Mr. Speaker, you may remember this picture from Life magazine last June. This is a picture of 3-year-old Silgi. She sits on a mud floor, in a filthy dress, stitching soccer balls bound for Los Angeles--Los Angeles, this country for which we pay large sums of money of which she gets a pittance. With needles longer than her fingers her stitching is adequate, but her hands are so small that she cannot handle scissors. She must get assistance from a fellow employee, her sister. Silgi lives in Sialkot, a city of 300,000 that produces 35 million soccer balls per year, 80 percent of the world's supply. Mr. Speaker, children like Silgi can sew up to 80 hours each week, 80 hours a week in silence and near total darkness. Their foreman says darkness discourages photographers who may wish to expose their trade. They are punished if they fall asleep or if they waste materials or miscut patterns. They are also punished if they complain to their parents or speak to any strangers outside the factory. These children may be punished in a small room in the back of the factory. They may be hung upside-down by their knees or they may be contained. Frequently they are starved. Let me show the last picture. This is of a girl bashing rocks. You could find pictures like any of these, scenes like any of these children that are pictured here today in any of these countries that we refer to. Sometimes the entire family is working in bondage, perhaps to pay the debt of a diseased relative. Children are required to work alongside their parents to maximize production. They work up to 14 hours a day carrying rocks or breaking them into pieces. This young girl is doing just that. She lives in an area where gravel is scarce. In order to make cement, rocks must be broken down to small stones, and many rural areas' traditional class or caste systems perpetuate bonded labor. Pledging one's labor and that of his children may be the only resource a family has and may be all they can pledge as security for a loan. Unfortunately, the same family may be uneducated and illiterate. It is easy prey to the money lender who may charge outrageous interest rates, and in those cases in which the labor of the family is pledged, debts are passed from parent to child often for generations upon generations. Mr. Speaker, a surprising number of children are minors. The hazards they face are enormous. In the jungles of southeastern Peru, children work mining gold. In 1991, common graves of child workers--these are mass graves of child workers--were uncovered. The corpses reveal that these children died from disease and from work-related injuries. Mr. Speaker, let me just speak briefly as to what the United States can do about this. First thing we need to know is that it exists, to spread the word so that we can become mobilized. There are many Members of Congress who have introduced legislation to combat these horrors, and just this week the Clinton administration announced a new voluntary code of conduct and labeling program. We need to gather it, this information, because in developing a solution to the problem of child labor we need to know the scope of the problem, the sources of the problem and what it is that we can do in the most cost-effective and efficient manner to change this situation. Because many governments are in denial over the scope of child exploitation in their country, the international labor organization has made progress working with specific countries in human rights groups in conducting surveys. For example, until recently Pakistan had never conducted a survey to determine the scope of its problem. Pakistan and the International Labor Organization should be commended for undertaking this project. The study indicated that at least 8 percent of Pakistan's 40 million children were actively working and being exploited. More than half of the child laborers were located in the province of Punjab. So while the release of hard data and the scope of the child labor problem may hurt Pakistan in the short term, it now knows where resources are most urgently needed. The United States compiles two sources of government information on child labor and human rights. The State Department's Annual Country Reports on Human Rights contains an overview of the human rights issues in every country. Unfortunately each report only contains a paragraph or two on child labor issues. Today I introduced legislation to add an additional section to the human rights reports that would detail the scope of child labor in every country. It would include an overview of the country's child labor laws and whether they are effectively enforced. It would include a discussion of government corruption and bribery and their relation to the effectiveness of child labor laws. It would greatly enhance the information available to us today. The other major source of government information are the reports published by the Bureau of International Labor Affairs under the direction of Under Secretary Andrew Samet. These reports are dedicated to specific aspects of the child labor problem. The first dealt with manufactured and mined imports, the second with forced and bonded child labor, and the third with goods imported into the United States. They have just undertaken their fourth report which I am sure will be as excellent as the last three. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are a contributing factor to the propagation of child labor. Few U.S. investors and even fewer U.S. consumers would knowingly buy products made from the sweat and toil of children. As consumers, we should ensure that when we spend $30 to $50 to buy a soccer ball for our children that the money does not go to companies that deny other children their childhoods by working them for pennies a day under inhumane conditions. As investors we should be sure our businesses are doing more than giving lip service to avoiding child labor. On Monday the Clinton administration took the first step in addressing these concerns. They brought several members of the manufacturing sector together with labor leaders and public interest groups to craft a voluntary labeling program. The first part of the President's program develops a ``Workplace Code of Conduct'' for apparel manufacturers. A code of conduct embodies a company's policy on a host of issues typically including ethical conduct which may differ from culture to culture. By firmly stating the company's policy on discrimination, forced labor, wages, benefits and other terms of employment, an American business can put its licensees and subcontractors on notice about the types of conditions it finds acceptable. By incorporating codes of conduct into contracts with licensees and subcontractors, a business can have greater control over how its goods are produced worldwide. Many American firms have taken upon themselves to adopt strong codes of conduct prohibiting child labor, yet problems persist. One clear example was Nike's recent experience in Pakistan. Nike has a strong code of conduct prohibiting child labor among its subcontractors and anyone they do business with. Yet numerous reports documented children stitching soccer balls for Nike. So why did they not know there was a problem producing soccer balls? Largely it was because when Nike's subcontractor in Pakistan became overworked, it subcontracted out some of its work, and in doing so did not impose the same code of conduct. This second level of subcontractors were unscrupulous profiteers who farmed out the work to whoever they could get to do it cheaply, the most cheaply, primarily children like Silgi. Multiple levels of subcontracting are common in global manufacturing. Unfortunately they add levels of complexity to enforcing labor codes. To ensure that the various levels of subcontractors and licensees are adhering to codes of conduct, businesses need to have reputable firms inspect their subcontractors periodically. Many small firms have been doing this successfully for years, and we are finally seeing the major accounting firms break into this market. To a certain extent, adopting codes of conduct makes economic sense. The more a code of conduct is enforced, the less likely the controlling firm is subject to claims of worker exploitation and perhaps litigation. President Clinton's recent initiative includes a code of conduct requiring no more than a 60-hour work week, a minimum age for employment of children, and compliance with local minimum wage laws. Even though an undeveloped country may not see enforcing its minimum wage laws as a priority, our codes of conduct will require that goods bound for the United States be made in compliance with these local laws. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire at this point how much time is remaining?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution to amend the United States Constitution to require a two- thirds vote to raise Federal taxes. I think The Washington Post characterized it accurately today with their editorial entitled, ``A Show Vote On Tax Day.'' But the Constitution deserves better than to be used as a political proper. It is a simple idea, but I think voting for it, while it may give my colleagues some brownie points with some of the antigovernment tax groups, it invites dangerous consequences for the future of our economy and our democracy. The House leadership sought to avoid a discussion of the serious consequences that this could effect by bypassing the regular committee process with hearings and the kind of extensive public debate that it merited. The resolution fails to define what the term ``de minimis'' means in this legislation. Quickly, sure, the gentleman is going to tell me that there was some committee discussion of it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I understand that. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman would agree that, relative to other votes of consequence, there was a minimal amount of debate within the committee itself. Normally you go for several weeks, bringing in all the interest groups that are involved in this and have given it study. But that is not my main point anyway. I do not want to debate the gentleman at length. I appreciate the gentleman's point of view on it. Mr. Speaker, I think that with ratification of this amendment, anyone who objects to any tax policy change could have their day in court. Any changes that broaden the tax base, that close corporate loopholes, that overhaul our tax system, be it the majority leader's call for a new flat tax, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means' interest in the national sales tax, but even something far less radical like a capital gains tax cut, could be contested in court. The resolution will prove unworkable. As the House leadership has already found with their once-celebrated tenet of the Contract With America, a meaningless rule change that required a three-fifths vote for tax legislation had to be waived by the Committee on Rules each time we took up any kind of tax bill before this body. It violates the spirit of majority rule and will take us back to the very problems our Founding Fathers experienced under the Articles of Confederation. I hope some of my colleagues will listen to this, because our Founding Fathers did in fact require that 9 out of the 13 States ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the States to raise revenue. In other words, they had this requirement originally in the Articles of Confederation. It did not work. They found that this supermajority was too much, that there were not two-thirds of the Members who had the courage to do what they felt was necessary to make this country survive. So in 1787, at the Constitutional Convention, our Founding Fathers recognized this defect. They established a national government that would impose and enforce laws and collect revenues through a simple majority rule. There is a lot of debate on this. I would like to also stress how unworkable the resolution will prove based upon the experience we had in the last Congress, where we required a three-fifths vote of approval for any tax increase that we passed. In one of the first actions at the beginning of the 104th Congress, the Congress modified clause 5(c) of rule XXI. It said that no bill or joint resolution, in other words, any action that carries a Federal income tax increase, will be considered as passed unless it gets three-fifths of the Members voting. Compliance with that rule lasted no longer than 3 months, the time it took to bring the Contract With America Tax Relief Act of 1995 to the floor of the House for a vote. It did not work. On April 5 of that year I came to this well and raised a point of order on a provision in that act that repealed section 1(h) affecting the maximum rate for long-term capital gains. It was a tax increase. In fact, subsequently, the Parliamentarian agreed with me. Mr. Speaker, five times when we have had tax bills before this body we violated the three-fifths requirement. There had to be a waiver of the rule. Now, at the beginning of this Congress, we made it easier to completely avoid that three-fifths requirement. What are we doing now, saying that we are going to have a constitutional amendment that requires two-thirds? We know it will not work. It did not work with the last Congress. I think we are playing with the Constitution and we are doing a disservice to the American people. I urge a no vote.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a young and vital member of the northern Virginia community whose life was tragically cut short by gun violence. Ann Harris' life was filled with promise. She came from a wonderful, devoted family; she was a varsity tennis and soccer player at Mount Vernon High School; a member of the National Honor Society; and, she had just been accepted in the early admissions program at Purdue University. Ann's natural vibrance and exuberance for life made her a very popular and outgoing young woman. A former intern of mine, Jennifer Reiley, who was one of Ann's best friends and soccer teammates described Ann as someone who always looked on the bright side and helped others see the best in themselves. She said Ann was a natural leader, who knew when to listen and when to lead. While on vacation in Washington State visiting a friend and former student at Mount Vernon High School, Ann, just 17 years old, was fatally shot in a drive-by shooting. The unprovoked attack has shocked northern Virginians and Tacoma, WA, residents, who can't believe such a senseless act of violence could happen in such a peaceful community. Ann's parents, Coleman and Jean Harris, have been actively involved in every aspect of Ann's life: Coleman Harris is currently president of the Parent-Teacher Association and Jean Harris is president of the Choral Boosters. Yet, for all of their involvement, they could not prevent the senseless act of violence that stripped them of their talented young daughter. Mr. Speaker, the violence must stop. Congress must act to ensure that guns are taken off the streets and out of the hands of reckless criminals who have no respect for human life. Our efforts together can help prevent such needless tragedy in the future. As our community mourns Ann's all too brief life and tragic end, we must work to ensure that our children can feel safe and that no other parents will have to endure the kind of suffering that Coleman and Jean Harris now endure.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for more projects like the new Marriott Hotel to be built on the beachfront in Gaza. I offer the recent essay by my constituent, Mr. Ralph Nurnberger, from the Christian Science Monitor (3/6/97), as an excellent recognition of the need for more targeted economic aid to the West Bank and Gaza. As Mr. Nurnberger states, ``. . . the real test of the peace process is how it affects the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians. If substantive and visible improvements do not result, no international agreements can succeed.'' He is absolutely right. Only the development of a strong economic infrastructure will ensure that progress and peace will succeed. [From the Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 6, 1997] Not a Heartbreak Hotel (By Ralph Nurnberger) The day before he left for his official visit to the United States, Yasser Arafat presided over the groundbreaking ceremony for a Marriott Hotel to be built on the beachfront in Gaza. This project says, symbolically, that the Middle East peace process might, finally, produce tangible benefits for the people in the area, especially through direct involvement of the private sector. The construction and later operation of this hotel will provide employment for hundreds of Palestinians. It will contain a modern commercial center to enable international visitors and Palestinians to conduct business as it is done elsewhere in the world. The project will include a self-contained telecommunications center for international calls, faxes, and e-mail as well as excess telephone capacity for the local market. This project will be the first major American private sector involvement in Gaza. The total investment will be approximately six times more than all other American investments in Gaza--combined! While diplomatic achievements are essential, the real test of the peace process is how it affects the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians. If substantive and visible improvements do not result, no international agreements can succeed. For the majority of Israelis, the key element is security. Israelis must feel safe riding buses, shopping in malls, and sending their children to schools. If random acts of violence occur, they must be assured that the Palestinian Authority will work with Israeli officials to find and prosecute the terrorists. Peace dividend: lower incomes Although more Israelis have been killed through terror attacks since the Sept. 13, 1993, signing than in any comparable period, it appears that the Palestinians finally understand their responsibility to work with Israelis to enhance security concerns. The test for most Palestinians is whether the peace accords will result in an improved quality of life. Developing a thriving economy that provides new employment opportunities will not only minimize hatreds and tensions, but will also bring about the promise of a new life. Rather than growing to absorb these workers, the Palestinian economy has declined over the past two years. Thus, workers have fewer opportunities to find employment within Palestinian areas. The unemployment rate in Gaza, always high, is now estimated at approximately 50 percent, with the rate in the West Bank estimated at 30 percent. Unemployment is highest among young, single men--the most likely recruits for terror-oriented groups. big aid pledges, little follow-through The US hosted an international meeting on Oct. 1, 1993, at which $2.4 billion in assistance to the West Bank and Gaza was pledged. Most of these funds have not been delivered or have been diverted from long-term projects to emergency programs and costs of running the Palestinian Authority. The United States committed $500 million, of which $75 million annually for five years is managed by the Agency for International Development (AID). The other $125 million was to come from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to assist American investors through a combination of loans, loan guarantees, and political risk insurance. AID has assisted a number of worthwhile projects, including $12 million for construction of six housing units with 192 apartments in Gaza called Al Karam Towers. AID is also helping to improve uses of scarce water resources and assisting private sector economic growth through technical assistance, training, loans to local firms, and establishment of industrial parks. But AID funds have been diverted from long-term projects to help in establishing Palestinian self- rule. For example, AID committed $2 million to support local elections in the West Bank and Gaza, and to assist Palestinians in promoting more responsible and accountable governance. AID has minimized help for the agricultural sector, the one area where Palestinians could immediately develop profitable exports, especially under a new Free Trade Agreement with the US. Allocating additional funds to farm exports would be cost efficient. OPIC made a major effort to seek private sector projects to assist or insure. But most private investors have avoided Gaza, so OPIC funds committed to date have been modest. Mr. Arafat would be wise to stress the solving of such economic problems as a prime way to reduce tensions, improve the quality of life, and enhance opportunities for peace. He should build on momentum from the hotel project and stress the need for private sector involvement in the Palestinian economy.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong for the House to give the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, twice as much to conduct a partisan investigation of one branch of Government as the Senate has provided Senator Thompson to look at both branches of Government in a bipartisan manner. That is our objection. Mr. Speaker, I served with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] 5 years ago when he was the ranking Republican on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. We were looking into the fact that the Bush White House had spent millions of dollars on Air Force One and staff to do partisan fundraising around the country. The American taxpayers were supposed to be reimbursed. They were not. We had one trip down to Florida that cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign for Republican candidates. The Republican National Committee reimbursed the taxpayers $316. We had another one up and down the west coast, for Republican Senate candidates that cost nearly $1 million. The RNC reimbursed about $600 to the taxpayer. We asked for the official travel logs to do an adequate investigation. The gentleman from Indiana said no, he did not want the White House to release any such information. At the time, he said, ``If you suggest that the White House has done anything wrong, you should bring charges, not hold partisan hearings.'' That is the quote from my friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. He also said later on when we exposed even worse abuses on the part of the Bush White House, that the Congress should investigate its own problems before launching a fishing expedition on the executive branch. I would suggest the gentleman from Indiana should take that statement to heart, to investigate the serious improprieties that were alleged in the Washington Post this week, where a current committee chairman, Mr. Burton, shook down a lobbyist for campaign money and retaliated against that person when he did not raise enough. We have allegations that the Republican leadership is making a friends and enemies list of lobbyists they will and will not talk to. Roll Call reports that the House Republican leadership is retaliating against groups and individuals who contribute to Democrats. We have a systematic process by which the Republican leadership has intimidated and retaliated against people and organizations who don't contribute enough to them. To put a stop to such abuses this committee need not look down the mall at the President, but at themselves in the mirror. We have a chance to forever change the system and enact campaign finance reform. Instead, this resolution will perpetuate the poisonous atmosphere that only contributes to our own demise and the cynicism of the voters. We must vote this resolution down and place our priorities where they belong--in legislation and working to improve the lives of our constituents rather than finger pointing and partisan warfare. Mr. Speaker, this is not fair. It is not right. Reject this resolution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues know that I do not support the Republican agenda on abortion or constitutional amendments to preclude it. In fact I have fought for a woman's right to choose. But this is an extremist amendment. This is an extremist procedure, and it is not about a woman's right to choose; it is about a baby's right to life. That is what this is about. We have protected a woman's right to choose. That is why more than 99 percent of all the abortions performed in this country are performed before the third trimester. but if we asked the doctors who performed this procedure, they will tell us that the vast majority of these procedures are performed on young, healthy women with healthy fetuses, and it is wrong. I spoke to a group of junior high students this morning. They asked me about this issue. I told them my position. They disagreed, and one of the women, young girls; these were 13- and 14-year-old girls; she said ``But what if a girl has a baby and then she decides when that baby is almost due to be delivered that she has a lot of other things in her life and the baby is going to get in her way?'' Hard to understand, but hard to sanction, hard to support. The fact is that we discredit the credibility of the pro-choice movement, the right of a woman to control her life when we support this kind of extremist position. I support this bill. The Democratic Party and the pro-choice movement ought to as well. Mr. Speaker, I have been committed throughout my career to making reproductive choice a right for women as proscribed by the Supreme Court of the United States. I have fought to uphold the principle that no government should tell women that such an important decision is not her own. And this is what the Supreme Court has said repeatedly. They said in Roe versus Wade that the Government has no right to limit a woman's right to choose to have an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. In the second trimester they said that the Government may make some restrictions and in the third they may restrict it entirely except to save her life or health. With advances in medical technology the Supreme Court updated this decision. In 1992 they reformed the trimester framework in deciding Casey versus Planned Parenthood and said that States may make restrictions only after fetal viability. Recent studies suggest that this occurs around the 24th week of gestation. The procedure in this bill defined as partial-birth abortion is not a procedure protected by the Supreme Court. It occurs after fetal viability, and despite the lack of recorded information as to its prevalence, recent revelations of several members of the pro-choice community lead us to believe that it occurs on normal fetuses and healthy mothers. According to the Center for Disease Control, only 1.5 percent of all abortions performed in the United States are performed after 21 weeks gestation. This argument over the number of these procedures performed is irrelevant. This procedure should not be performed on healthy viable fetuses and healthy mothers. Even if it is only once a year, but certainly not 5,000 times a year. Let me address briefly the controversy surrounding Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers. Mr. Fitzsimmons is a constituent of mine, and I have been acquainted with him for many years. Mr. Fitzsimmons has been the object of criticism from many within the pro-choice community because he made the decision to confirm what had already been reported in the Washington Post and other publications. This was that late term abortions were bring performed more frequently than we were being told, and that they were being performed on normal fetuses. He also confirmed that these facts were plainly inconsistent with previous statements he made. But this episode is not about Ron Fitzsimmons. It is about the obligation of the pro-choice movement to be candid and forthcoming to members of the public, the President, and Members of this House. I hope that the pro-choice community will learn from this episode and use it as an occasion to re-channel its efforts toward a reaffirmation of the truth in public discourse and a reasonable sense of balance between the freedom to choose and taking responsibility for our actions.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the full 5 minutes, although I will yield to a colleague after I say a few words about the bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. This is an issue that has been with us since the founding of our democracy. I happen to represent northern Virginia, the home of George Washington at Mount Vernon. Some of my colleagues may not be aware that the first time that George Washington ran for office he was defeated. He ran for the House of Delegates for Virginia and he lost. His advisers came to him after he lost and said, ``General Washington, the problem is that you did not treat.'' They explained that the custom is to distribute whiskey to the landowners on election day. Sure enough, next election, he treated and he won overwhelmingly. James Madison had the same problem. He did not learn from George Washington's experience and he lost, and then he went back to treating. Treating led to what they called macing, where essentially a candidate would dun the members of his political party for contributions. Well, one thing led to another, and now we have a system that is in desperate need of another major reform. We have had many reforms. The 1974 reform was one such major reform. In fact, let me quote from Lyndon Johnson in 1967. In a special address to this Congress, he said, ``Our current campaign finance laws are inadequate in scope and now obsolete. More loophole than law, they invite evasion and circumvention.'' It took 7 years and the Watergate break-ins before Congress passed real reform. Those words, though, are equally true today. We have got to reform campaign finance law. It is corrupting the political process as well as the legislative process. We have a bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, terrific people on both sides of the aisle are cosponsoring it. We have the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], and the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]. I can go on and on. And these Republican Members are in addition to a long list of Democratic cosponsors. One of those folks, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], is one of the Republican sponsors. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to Mr. Wamp now to conclude my 5 minutes.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will amend the truth in savings law to make Government agencies more accessible to the public. In recent years State and local governments, along with the Federal Government, have made a conscientious effort to improve the quality and efficiency of their customer services. Public expectations now focus on convenience, quickness, and completeness when receiving public services. Given the option, many people would prefer to register their car, pay their water bill, or their real estate and personal property taxes over the telephone with a credit card. It is quick, convenient, and spares people the time and expense of visiting the motor vehicle office or tax office and spending their time waiting in long lines. Payment of taxes with credit cards has the added benefit of enabling taxpayers to avoid the stigma and added expense of late tax payments, since the card holder can avoid the late penalty fee and extend their payments out over several months. This legislation is necessary because the major credit card companies insist that public agencies be treated the same as department stores and restaurants who are prohibited by the credit card companies from passing the cost of credit card transactions directly onto the customer. Merchants must swallow this cost or pass this cost on to their cash paying customer through higher prices. Few merchants complain because they can raise their prices and encourage their customers to buy more on credit than they could pay with cash. Public agencies are different. The Government should not raise everyone's taxes to pay for credit card user fees. Moreover, State and local law may prohibit or restrict public agencies from absorbing or spreading this cost. If the Internal Revenue Service were to allow the public to pay taxes with a credit card, it could not absorb the 3-percent service charge per credit card transaction. Under Mastercard and Visa's policy, the IRS would have to absorb the $300 million in service charges the two companies would collect on $10 billion worth of credit card tax payments. State and local government agencies face a similar obstacle. The legislation I am introducing will remove this obstacle and provide the public a convenient option for conducting their business with public agencies at a minimum of expense. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the Eastern Fairfax All-Stars for the terrific job they did marching in the inaugural parade. This is a group of very talented high school students attending Mount Vernon and West Potomac High Schools in the Eighth District of Virginia. These two high school bands represent the very best of our youth. They overcame big odds, and working together, they performed at their very best. These students practiced during the weekends and winter vacation in subfreezing temperatures. We, in the Eighth District, are very proud of them. Of course, the performance of these students is also due to the efforts of their dedicated and caring band directors, Mr. Steve Rice of West Potomac and Jack Elgin of Mount Vernon. Both of these gentlemen also took their vacation time and weekends to help these students achieve the performance level they needed for the inaugural parade. Finally, I would like to commend the students' families, the school's administrators, and the entire community for their part in helping these young people. Thank you for all you have done.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand how we as the leaders of the most powerful, prosperous Nation on Earth can vote to deny the poorest people on Earth their ability to control their own lives, to have some hope of one day rising out of the poverty that destroys their dreams and severely limits the lives of their children. We will leave today for home or for travel, comfortable in the fact that we have control over our lives. We can express our love for our spouses without the fear that it might cause even more suffering and deprivation of our families and their future. Surely we all understand that overpopulation is the most serious crisis facing the 21st century, that it is the principal cause of child labor, of the sexual exploitation of young girls in Third World countries around the world, of the cheapening of human lives. We can empower these lives, give those destitute mothers reason to dream that there may one day be hope for their children, especially for their daughters. Not to release these funds is unconscionable when we have the ability to relieve suffering by providing voluntary information, information that will substantially reduce the number of abortions performed and will reduce the exploitation of powerless people. It is our responsibility to know the cause of poverty, to care, and, when we have the ability, to do something responsible about it. This is the right thing to do. Vote to release these funds today. Mr. Chairman, the question before us today is not whether we should act today to release family planning funds, but whether or not we can conscientiously fail to do so. I rise today in strong support of the President's resolution to release funds to USAID for international family planning programs. Time and time again, research shows that family planning programs work. The bottom line is that they decrease poverty and improve quality of life for families in developing countries. We all agree that there should be fewer abortions. This is exactly what the President's proposal accomplishes. Not surprisingly, delaying the release of this money has resulted in an increase in the number of unplanned pregnancies. This will lead to an increase in the number of abortions. Of the 585,000 maternal deaths which occur each year, 13 percent are attributed to unwanted pregnancy and illegal and unsafe abortions. According to the Population Institution, of the 22,000 children who die every day, many are the result of inadequate family planning, and insufficient time between pregnancies. The tragedy in these deaths is that they can so easily be prevented with the adequate resources to teach men and women how to prevent unwanted and unhealthy pregnancies. A poignant example of the impacts this delay in funds has had, is seen in Haiti. Haiti is currently in the process of integrating its family planning programs into the CARE, the child health and maternal care program. If we continue to deny release of these funds this program integration will cease. By May of this year, just 3 months away, the nongovernment organizations funded by USAID will be forced to begin laying off workers leaving thousands of Haitian men and women without access to family planning, threatening their health and the health of their children. Mr. Chairman, let's vote in the only responsible manner we can to release funds for international family planning funds, and against any attempts to apply unnecessary restrictions on their use.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New York. I gather there are other speakers so I will not take time. I have a statement that I am going to submit for the Record that pays tribute to the people within my district that have put so much effort into preserving the memory, the artifacts, the books, recordings of black history in northern Virginia, the Society for the Preservation of Black Heritage, the Parker-Gray Society, we have a number of groups that have been very successful. I want to honor them within the Record. I would also mention some of the history that cannot help but be recalled at this time. In fact, it is relevant to some of the issues that we deal with today. For example, in 1846, there was a secession of Alexandria from the District of Columbia and our newspaper reports how African Americans, who had been brought here involuntarily for the purpose of slavery but then had been freed because they were part of the District of Columbia, having lived in Alexandria lined the way to all the polling stations, begging those whites, because white people were the only ones allowed to vote at the time, not to--what it was was a secession from the District of Columbia to make that populated part of northern Virginia part of the Commonwealth of Virginia and thus they would no longer be freed people. They were unsuccessful in that effort and Alexandria immediately slipped back to some of its darkest days and became a center for slavery. I want to thank the Washington Urban League for purchasing the buildings now that at one point were slave quarters, to remind young people growing up in our community of the relatively recent history that gives us cause to renew our efforts to be vigilant and not to take our freedoms and progress for granted. Because we are only talking about 150 years. Almost exactly 150 years ago when this occurred. It took a Civil War to restore dignity and freedom to those citizens. We, today, are in a similar struggle, although it may not be as clear, to establish dignity and opportunity for all of our citizens, particularly within the District of Columbia, our capital city. And so I would hope that as we focus on Black History Month, that we would have more than the African-American Representatives within the Congress contribute to this. We are all representing districts of our country that have been profoundly affected by the most scandalous era within America's history, and it is up to all of us not just to contribute words but to contribute a sincere commitment to build upon the progress that our African-American brothers and sisters have achieved. We are where we are, in large part, because of the pain, the suffering, the perseverance and the immense contribution they have made to our culture and our history. Mr. Speaker, the prepared statement I referred to earlier follows herewith: Mr. Speaker, today, as we come together to celebrate the contributions that African-Americans have made to this great Nation, I would like to pay special tribute to the many African-Americans in my district that have helped northern Virginia grow into the diverse and distinguished place it is today. Since 1983, the Alexandria Black History Resource Center has been educating northern Virginia about the history of our community. In addition to giving lectures and tours of the center, the Resource Center houses an impressive collection of memorabilia which documents the history of the African-American experience in Virginia. Upon visiting the Resource Center, guests learn of the great efforts made by the Alumni Association of the Parker-Gray School and the Alexandria Society for the Preservation of Black Heritage, Inc. to remind everyone of the contributions that African-Americans have made across the country. Their efforts also remind us that only by working together do we achieve an understanding of who we are as individuals. The Parker-Gray School and the Alexandria Society for the Preservation of Black Heritage, Inc. both have an impressive history of their own to tell. The society began as the response of African- Americans in the Parker-Gray section of Alexandria to protect the Alfred Street Baptist Church from demolition. This church served as a catalyst for the black community in Alexandria. During an unstable time for African-Americans in this area, the church was not only a place of worship, but it was also a place for blacks to meet, plan, and build the community into what it is today. The Alexandria Society for the Preservation of Black Heritage, Inc. succeeded in its efforts. It continues to use the same perseverance to maintain and expand upon the black community. The Parker-Gray School, which is named for two African-American principals of earlier schools that added greatly to the community, became the first 4-year high school for blacks in this area. The descendants of those who fought long and hard for the opening of this high school continue to work to build our community. Another important project in the Eighth Congressional District is the Slave Memorial at Mount Vernon. The memorial, whose design was contributed to by students of the Howard University School of Architecture and Planning, consists of a gray granite column at the center of three concentric brick circles. The center column bears the inscription ``In memory of the Afro-Americans who served as slaves at Mount Vernon.'' The three brick circles around the column are inscribed ``Faith,'' ``Hope'' and ``Love''--to symbolize the virtues that sustained those living in bondage. This memorial serves as a reminder of all of the thousands of visitors who come to Mount Vernon every year that this country was built by the labor of all of our ancestors. This is the only known monument of its kind. It is a permanent tribute to enslaved African-Americans, whose skills, talents and spiritual strengths were an integral part of America's past. Every year, for the past 13 years, Black Women United for Action, an organization which serves as a strong voice of the black community, and the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, the non-profit organization that owns Mount Vernon, organize a wreath-laying ceremony at the Slave Memorial to honor these men and women. All of the organizations and people mentioned above have done much to honor the rich contributions of African Americans, not only in northern Virginia but across the Nation. Their hard work is important to all of our communities to grow as one, remembering the struggles of our past and building the blocks to our future. Black History Month is a time for celebrating the strength and diversity that African-Americans provide to these United States of America. And I thank you for giving me this time to add to the celebration. I only wish I had more time to give thanks to all of the groups and highlight all of the sites in the Eighth District of Virginia which add to the community. I would like to encourage everyone to come across the river to experience this rich environment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the charitable efforts of Mr. Richard E. Vatter, American Legion children and youth chairman and Loretta Smith, American Legion Auxiliary children and youth chairwoman. Mr. Vatter and Ms. Smith have been awarded the highest honor in the VISION [Volunteers In Service: Investing in Our Nation] program. Mr. Vatter and Ms. Smith are members of the American Legion. This organization was founded in 1919 with the mission to serve veterans and their families, the community, and the nation. In working to fulfill this goal Legion members donate a variety of resources to blood drives, Boys State, youth and adult athletic teams, educational scholarships, needy children, and veteran facilities. Mr. Vatter and Ms. Smith are members of the American Legion Post 176 which has a 42-year history of good works in the Springfield community. Mr. Vatter and Ms. Smith were recognized for their work with the Spinoza buddy bear project. This project provides children who have chronic, life endangering, organ, mental, and emotional illnesses with a teddy bear that speaks. Mr. Vatter and Ms. Smith worked with the community and were able to procure 30 bears. This exceeded the expectations of the project and brought diverse elements of the Springfield community together to work toward this noteworthy goal. Congratulations, Mr. Vatter and Ms. Smith. It is my hope that your good works inspire others to focus time and energy on those less fortunate. Best of luck in the future to both of you and may American Legion Post 176 enjoy a long and active life in the Eighth District of Virginia.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, CWO2 Robert G. Johnston, USA (Retired) who retired from The Retired Officers Association last November. In connection with his retirement, I had occasion to reexamine Bob's biography. I never realized it before but, in one way or another, Bob has spent his entire adult life in or working for the military and its people. Born and raised in Atlanta, GA. Bob entered the Army as a draftee in January 1953 and rose through the ranks to the grade of chief warrant officer. His enlisted service included tours with the Leadership Committee of the Infantry School at Fort Benning, GA, the First Infantry Division at Fort Riley, KS, the Third Infantry at Fort Meyer, VA, and two tours with the U.S. Army Special Security Group in the Pentagon. He served overseas with the U.S. Embassy in London and the Military Assistance Command in Vietnam. Upon appointment to warrant officer in the intelligence field in 1972, he received training in counterintelligence at the Intelligence School, Fort Huachuca, AZ. His subsequent service as a warrant officer included tours with the Pentagon Counterintelligence Force, as executive officer of the 902d Military Intelligence Group and personnel officer of the U.S. Army Special Security Group. After retiring from the Army in November 1975, Bob joined the Retired Officers Association's Placement Service [TOPS] as a placement specialist. He assumed the position as Deputy Director in 1978 and became Director of TOPS in 1994. Bob's military awards include the Bronze Star. Meritorious Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, and Army Commendation Medal with Oak leaf Cluster. The officer placement service or TOPS as it is called is a unique enterprise and it requires a unique individual to run it. In essence, it is a job placement service for military officers from all of the seven uniformed services who are either retiring or being forced out as a result of the current force drawdown. The very heart of this operation is Bob Johnston in his 18 years of service as Deputy Director and then Director of TOPS, he has worked directly with active duty and retired officers and with civilian employers, plus executive search firms in assisting officers to find civilian positions for a second career. His reputation in this area is legend. In some significant way Bob assisted more than 200,000 officers in making a successful transition from the service to civilian employment; personally critiqued over 14,000 resumes; counseled over 10,000 officers; and rewrote the acclaimed ``Marketing Yourself for a Second Career'' publication which is distributed to over 50,000 service members annually. As the Director of TOPS for the last 2 years, his major achievements include the creation of a TOPS Job Bulletin that could be accessed from the Internet and thus, has TOPS poised to meet the technological challenges of the 21st century; and a significant increase in the number of employers and executive recruiters who come to TROA looking for TROA members to hire to more than 2,000 firms worldwide. Mr. Speaker, as a final thought, the word leadership is often applied to those who do not deserve it. In Bob Johnston's case, just the opposite is true. He was a leader on active duty and in retirement continued to be a leader to his fellow officers, showing them how to cope with the challenges of a changing world. Bob has been a credit to his country, the Retired Officers Association and to the entire retired community. Bob resides in Springfield, VA, with his wife Elsie. The couple has two grown daughters.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to the ``Health Care Commitment Act.'' This legislation allows Medicare eligible military retirees and their dependents to voluntarily participate in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. We recruit young men and women to serve in our nation's military with a promise that the government will provide them health care for life. While this is not a contract, many men and women enlist with the good faith belief that we will provide their medical needs for when they retire. After these men and women have served their country and turned 65, the Department of Defense reneges on its promises, turns them away from its insurance programs and effectively denies them access to its medical treatment facilities. The Department of Defense is the only large employer in this nation that kicks its retirees out of its health insurance programs. But it does not need to be. Civilian employees in the same Department of Defense, and throughout the government, are given the opportunity to participate in one of the finest health insurance programs in the country. The Federal Employees Health Program is an established health insurance program that enables employees to choose from a range of health insurance packages. Federal retirees, unlike their counterparts who served in the military, are not dropped from their insurance plans when they turn 65 and are not placed at the bottom or priority lists. Instead they are treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve. My legislation ensures that all federal retirees, whether they served their nation as a member of the armed forces or as a civilian employee, are treated with the same dignity and have an equal opportunity to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.