Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2700 as introduced by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Tejeda]. This bill designates the U.S. Post Office in Elmendorf, TX, as the ``Amos F. Longoria Post Office.'' Mr. Longoria was drafted in the U.S. Army and served in the European theater during World War II. He was fatally wounded at the crossing of the Rapido River in Italy and later died on November 19, 1943. This is a very fitting tribute to a dedicated public servant who paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country, so I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Tejeda], a very hard-working and courageous Congressman.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 3586. The goal of our veterans' preference laws is very simple. We want to afford individuals who have served our country in times of war an opportunity to continue their public service through Federal employment. Veterans' preference does not entitle a veteran to a Federal job but, rather, it gives him or her an advantage in seeking employment. This has always been a bipartisan goal and it is supported by the Congress and the White House. It is in this bipartisan spirit that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] and I have brought forward this bill. Since 1865 the Federal Government has been a leader in offering job opportunities to veterans. This has been true regardless of who has been in the White House. As a percentage of the work force, there are more veterans in the Federal work force today than there are in the private work force. There is also a higher representation of disabled veterans and a higher representation of veterans who are 30 percent or more disabled in the Federal work force. Since the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight began work on this legislation 3 months ago, we have had some criticism. I do not think that the criticism that was directed at this administration is justified by the facts. While it is true that the absolute number of veterans in the Federal work force is declining, it is also true that this trend began in 1984. The reduction in the number of federally employed veterans does not represent any insidious effort by any administration to diminish veterans' preference, but it reflects the simple fact that the largest group of veterans, those from World War II and the Korean War, are now ready for retirement. More than 59 percent of all veterans in this country are between 55 and 64. The number of Americans who served in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and the Persian Gulf simply are not large enough to replace their predecessors. We do not have to look farther than the U.S. Senate to see the example of a World War II veteran retiring and replaced by a nonveteran. It is happening all over. Despite the absolute decrease in the number of veterans, it should be said that the Clinton administration has done an excellent job in recruiting veterans. The percentage of veterans in the Federal work force declined throughout the 1980's, but it stabilized since President Clinton was elected. In fact, the percentages of veterans as new hires is actually increasing. Since 1992, the percentage of veterans hired has gone from 23.6 percent of new hires to 33.3 percent. One out of every three new hires is a veteran. But the Federal Government is not hiring, it is firing. We are downsizing. Therefore, the focus of veterans' preference has shifted toward ways to protect veterans during a RIF. The focus now is how to give veterans the opportunity to retain their existing Federal jobs when their agency and the Federal Government as a whole is cutting employment. Again, this is not an entitlement that we are passing today. We do not intend to ensure that no veteran ever gets riffed. Rather, this legislation contains a series of protections that give veterans an advantage over other Federal employees in retaining their jobs. This legislation closes a number of loopholes through which agencies might try to circumvent the current veterans' preference laws. The bill allows veterans and those who have served in the military the opportunity to compete for a greater number of existing Federal jobs. The bill also gives veterans greater protections in RIF's. It seeks to prevent agencies from manipulating Federal RIF laws to unfairly, improperly target veterans. While it is important to remember that none of the current flexibilities have ever actually been used to target veterans, in fact, veterans have disproportionately benefited from the Clinton administration's use of flexible hiring and RIF, some in the veterans' community have expressed concerns. So this bill addresses their concerns and ensures that in the future the Clinton administration will maintain its commitment to veterans. The bill also gives veterans a forum for redress if they believe that their veterans' preference rights have been violated. This new appeals process is more generous than that enjoyed by any other Federal employee and is built around the popular and very successful Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. The acronym is USERRA law. It has been working well and we are going to duplicate it. Finally, the legislation extends for the first time veterans' preference to the nonpolitical jobs in the White House, the Congress, and the judiciary. I had a number of concerns with the legislation as originally drafted. I wanted to ensure that we do not unduly impede the operations of the agencies in getting the most qualified people as we attempt to close loopholes in veterans' preference, but downsizing is always difficult and only can be done correctly if Congress grants the agency a high degree of flexibility. I also wanted to ensure that the redress system was fair and effective. The last thing we need is an overly burdensome and complicated redress system that encourages frivolous and meritless appeals. No one can be served rightly by such a system. The chairman of the subcommittee and I have worked closely on this legislation. We have made some significant improvements to the original bill. These changes do not weaken the bill but, rather, they ensure that it will work and that our goals will be administratively achievable. These consensus modifications have been incorporated in the bipartisan substitute offered in committee and the manager's amendment which will be offered here on the floor. We could not, however, agree on two major amendments offered for inclusion in the manager's amendment. While I appreciate the spirit in which these amendments were offered, I could not accept any proposal that would have watered down the preference that is enjoyed by those who actually served in the Persian Gulf war or reservists who experienced combat. In addition, I could not accept any amendment that would worsen the already complicated and overly burdensome Federal appeals process. Again, I appreciate Chairman Mica's leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor, and I appreciate his willingness to continue to work on this issue in a bipartisan and a constructive manner. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman's points. As I said in my comments, this should not be a political issue. There is bipartisan support for this bill as there always has been for veterans preference and veterans benefits. The point was made that Mr. Runyon, the head of the Postal Service, had criticisms of this bill. But I would inform the gentleman from Indiana that Mr. Runyon is not a presidential appointee. He is not a Clinton appointee. There is no Clinton appointee who has said anything of the like. The reality is that the decline in veterans preferential hiring occurred during the 1980's. Since the gentleman has brought the issue up, since the Clinton administration took over, it has increased from 26 percent to 33 percent. Those are facts. But the major, overwhelming fact is that there simply are not as many veterans around, the average age is 59, for obvious reasons, because that is when most people fought in World War II and the Korean War; so you are going to have a decline. What matters is the percentage of new hires. Since the Clinton administration took over, one out of every three new hires is a veteran. I just do not think we can support those numbers. I feel compelled to take some issue with the point that the gentleman attempted to make. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], from the heartland of America's veterans who has fought his way into the hearts of all those veterans in his district.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi, the Honorable Major General ``Sonny'' Montgomery, the representative of America's veterans. (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, just to say I do agree with the gentleman who just spoke that this is a good and appropriate bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 3768, which designates the Post Office in Groton, MA as the Augusta ``Gusty'' Hornblower Post Office. It is cosponsored by the entire Massachusetts delegation, particularly my friend and colleague, Mr. Blute. It is a fitting honor and duly notes the contributions made by Ms. Hornblower. She is a person well deserving of this honor, and we certainly support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes] has said everything that needs to be said about the person to whom we are dedicating this post office. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are also pleased to join the New York congressional delegation supporting H.R. 3139 that designates the post office in Centereach, NY, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh] has said, as the Rose Y. Caracappa Post Office. She was a former New York county legislator. She championed the rights of senior citizens and veterans. She deserves this honor. We support giving it to her. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, rather than reiterate the points that my colleague from New York has already made, let me just say that I rise in support of H.R. 885, which designates the U.S. post office in New York City as the Oscar Garcia Rivera Post Office. This measure was introduced, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh] said, by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] and supported by the whole New York congressional delegation pursuant to the committee rules. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this tribute to a pioneer whose work marked the beginning of Puerto Rican leadership in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

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

Mr. MORAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned as well for any constituents, who do not want to move, and for the independent integrity of the program. As a member of the Committee on International Relations, which has jurisdiction over Radio and TV Marti, I am also concerned that before this language was inserted we had not had any hearings on this subject. I know this concerns the gentleman from Kentucky, and I would like to explore the issue very briefly. The report that accompanies this appropriation directs USIA and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide to the Committee on Appropriations a report on the employees that are expected to move, the cost of the move, and the source of funds for the move. I applaud the committee for requiring this report. Obviously, this repot has not been completed as yet, and legislation has not been enacted, and yet people are being asked to pack their bags for Florida pronto. My question for the gentleman is this: Does the committee intend for the Agency to wait until the Agency has completed this report and submitted it to the committee before it begins carrying out the move? I know that the chairman would agree that that makes the most sense, to complete the report before taking any action, both from a management and a cost point of view.

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. MORAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that certainly makes a great deal of sense. I thank the gentleman. That is very helpful.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, my fellow colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and I would like to engage our colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], in a brief colloquy on the status of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, which is funded under this appropriation. In the 1996 appropriation, Congress directed that the headquarters of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting be moved from Washington, DC, to south Florida. That is all the legislation said.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a brave Virginian and proud member of the U.S. Air Force, who gave his life in service to his country. Capt. John William Kennedy known to his family and friends as Jack will complete his long awaited journey home to be laid to rest in Arlington Cemetery, Friday August 2, 1996. Capt. John William Kennedy was lost while flying a visual reconnaissance mission in an O-2A over Quangtin Province of South Vietnam. Captain Kennedy was a forward air controller with the 20th Tactical Air Support Squadron based in Chu Lai, Vietnam in support of the 23d Infantry Division. On August 16, 1971, radio contact was lost with Captain Kennedy's plane during normal radio communication check-in. There were no radio calls, no crash site found, and no eye witnesses. However, there were reports of a North Vietnamese regiment operating in the area. Captain Kennedy was listed as ``Missing in Action'' a status he carried until July of 1978, when the Air Force re-evaluated his status to ``Presumed Killed in Action.'' In May of this year, Captain Kennedy's family was contacted by the U.S. Air Force with a positive identification of Captain Kennedy's remains. Born in Washington, DC, Captain Kennedy was raised in Arlington and graduated from Wakefield High School in 1965. He then went on to the prestigious Virginia Military Institute and graduated in 1969, with a degree in Civil Engineering. In 1969 he was named Southern Conference Wrestling Champion in the 160 pound weight class. He was cocaptain of the varsity wrestling and soccer teams, a member of the VMI Honor Court, inducted into the Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities and Kappa Alpha. In 1980, Captain Kennedy was inducted into the Virginia Military Institutes Sports Hall of Fame. Captain Kennedy's military awards include the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Purple Heart, the Air Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. Captain Kennedy is survived by his mother Sally Chewning Kennedy of Lake Ridge, VA and his brother Daniel E. Kennedy, Jr. of Dumfries, VA. I offer the heartfelt appreciation of all Americans to Captain Kennedy's family and hope that they find solace in knowing America appreciates the profound loss they have experienced and the turmoil they have been through in bringing Captain Kennedy home.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. In this very bill, Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago I put money in for the National Institute of Corrections to study Lorton, to determine how bad it was and what could be done. They finished their report. We have their report. It says the situation is real bad. They suggest that dramatic action needs to be taken. The time to take dramatic action was yesterday, or last year, or several years ago. I see my good friend and colleague, Ms. Norton, standing, who represents the District of Columbia so ably. She has a plan to reduce the tax rate to 15 percent, which would cost about $700 million. I think the chances of getting that are problematic, but I wish her luck in trying to push it forward. There are other solutions, another more obvious solution right in front of us. That is to relieve the District of Columbia of responsibilities that it should not have to and cannot maintain. It cannot run the kind of a prison that a State would be expected to run. Yet Lorton Reformatory, Lorton Prison is burying the District in debt, in embarrassment, in all kinds of horror stories in the paper. It further undermines the credibility of the District government. They should not have to maintain this prison. It is too much. It is a State responsibility, we think, I think, and I think a lot of others feel this is a Federal Bureau of Prisons responsibility, that it should be put under the Bureau of Prisons. It should probably be closed and moved to a place, for example, in Pennsylvania. We have some districts that feel it is a win-win situation. They would love to have the jobs, to rebuild it somewhere like that, where it is still accessible, it is not as close but it is still accessible. We can do a good job. We can put in real rehabilitation, not teach prisoners how to farm and to milk cows, and so on, which might have been appropriate generations ago, but certainly not now. We need to teach them the most modern skills in construction, electronics, and the like. We need to start all over again with Lorton. We need to move at least the maximum security people to a new prison. We need to build that new prison. We need to start doing that today. To put this off another year is irresponsible. We cannot even afford toilet paper for the prisoners, for crying out loud. Every day you read about the situation worsening. It is our responsibility to do something about it. The vendors have not been paid in months. They are not going to continue providing the necessary supplies. Every day that this goes forward it is our responsibility to do something about it. I really wish that we would put more attention to this possibility of putting it on the Bureau of Prisons. I think we should have had an amendment on this appropriations bill. I would hope we would in the future, and maybe we can get something in the District of Columbia bill.

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

Mr. MORAN. Would the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia agree to a proposal that we set a 5-year time limit, at which time we would hope to have at least part of Lorton, perhaps the maximum detention, moved?

Mr. MORAN. What we are talking about is not making the Bureau of Prisons eat it but building a prison that would house Lorton but with Federal funding, because there are different sentencing rules that apply to D.C. versus other Federal sentencing guidelines. So we probably need to keep them as a discrete population. We are talking about building a new facility, for example. If we could do that and do that within a reasonable period of time, the gentlewoman would not object to that.