Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another 2 minutes and yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me and our colleague and my good friend from Maryland, Connie Morella, in sponsoring legislation to combat one of the most serious crises facing our planet. The earth is covered with hidden, silent killers. This deadly menace is the more than 100 million antipersonnel landmines that are lying in the ground in 64 countries waiting to explode and kill or injure some unsuspecting person. This terrible tool of war does not distinguish between children and soldiers. These mines only cost between $3 and $30 to make. It costs from $300 to $1,000 to clear just one landmine. Last year alone, 2 million new mines were laid. That is twenty times the number of mines removed. At the current pace it would take 1,100 years to rid the world of antipersonnel landmines. That is truly disturbing and disheartening. We must do more to combat this global crisis. The time has come to provide a comprehensive, flexible, and long-term approach to improve the role that the United States plays in international awareness, detection, and clearance of antipersonnel landmines and unexploded ordnance. The bill we are introducing today takes some important steps toward making U.S. participation in humanitarian demining more effective. Through measures set forth in this legislation, the United States, working with the international community and nongovernmental organizations, will have the necessary flexibility and ability to provide educational, financial, and technical assistance to those in need of humanitarian landmine removal. This bill will provide a long-term strategy to guide and sustain U.S. demining programs. We would require a 3-year plan. The report would also include a budget plan for the following 3 years, with recommendations for development of better technologies than exist today. Currently, landmine funding is largely on an annual basis. This bill does not appropriate any funding but does provide the necessary flexibility to utilize those funds available for humanitarian demining efforts. This bill would make humanitarian demining appropriations ``no year'' money which is particularly important since most demining projects are multi-year efforts. Most significantly, this legislation responds to the growing nationwide consensus on the landmine issue. Thanks especially to the tremendous efforts and able leadership of Senator Patrick Leahy and our colleague, Representative Lane Evans, the landmine menace has been under attack here on the Hill; and this issue is now attracting the Nation's attention. We must keep pressing this growing problem of landmines. How many years will it be before landmine clearance even equals the number of new landmines? The world may be many decades away from achieving this break-even point. We must speed that day along, so that we may measure it in years and not decades. Momentum is with us on this issue. Much has been done. More needs doing. I urge you to join me and our colleague from Maryland to help protect the innocent children, the mothers and other unsuspecting civilians, and the peacekeepers in Bosnia and around the globe, by joining with us to move this important bipartisan legislation through Congress as soon as possible to combat the landmine plague. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the last image that we have of Bill is one of courage and strength, an oxygen tube in his mouth, confined to a wheelchair. But the Bill Emerson that will live on in our minds and our hearts is a gregarious man, just full of energy and goodness and pride that he was part of this institution. I had the privilege of representing Bill and Jo Ann and their four daughters at their home-away-from-home in McLean, VA. In fact, I had a wonderful day one day when his daughter Tori shadowed me for the full day. And I will never forget when Bill joined us for lunch of seeing the pride in his eyes as he looked at his daughter, so beautiful, so bright, so accomplished, and he knew that this was largely because of his investment of time and caring and love in her and the rest of his family. He lives on in that family, as he does in this body. He invested so much of himself in making this the kind of legislative organization that is the pride of Western civilization. he spent most of his life here. He loved this body. He loved its Members and we loved him.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I hate to get in the middle of this exchange of roses, but our State Corporation Commission in Virginia, that I am sure the chairman is very much aware of, has some concerns in that we essentially wipe out of a lot of the State laws. I can understand why we do, but they are very much afraid that they will not have the time to go through their legislative and rulemaking process because they now require regulation fees and the filing of notice of mutual fund shares. And they are afraid as well that without doing so, they will not have sufficient enforcement authority under their current State law. Can the chairman assure us that it will be worked out?

Mr. MORAN. They retain their fees and enforcement authority.

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for putting that on the record.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. I much appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from Florida, and my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Civil Service Subcommittee, is on his feet, and he also would have authorizing responsibility for this, is very supportive as well, and I know that the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], is strongly supportive of doing this as well.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am as anxious to conclude this bill as anyone here, but I do have a simple amendment that addresses a very serious problem. Mr. Chairman, as all my colleagues know, young men and women are recruited into the military service with the promise that they will receive free health care for life. I can show my colleagues dozens of brochures where this is in writing that they will get free quality medical care for life. Unfortunately, the Government has decided to renege on this contract. Military retirees now, once they turn 65, are kicked out of the military insurance programs and effectively denied treatment at many military facilities. At the time when military retirees need medical treatment the most, our Government gives them the least. After age 65, military retirees are not allowed to enroll in CHAMPUS, they are not even allowed to enroll in TRI-CARE, and even worse they are effectively denied care at a military medical treatment facility because they are last on the priorities list. I have heard countless stories, and I know the chairman of the committee has, the chairman of the subcommittee, the ranking member. I bet most of the Members of this body have heard countless stories of people over the age of 65 waiting all day at a military medical treatment facility having younger people than them brought up ahead of them. People that come in much later than they have been waiting are brought to the front of the line because the policy is, if they are over the age of 65, they go to the back of the line, then have to wait until everyone else gets their health care. They only get health care on what they call a space-available basis. So, as my colleagues know, we have got to do something about this. Medicare is available to them under Medicare subvention. It is not adequate in many ways. It does not cover prescription drugs. Its reimbursement rates are simply too low. Our amendment addresses this inequity and honors the commitment made to military retirees by creating a very limited demonstration project that will allow military retirees over the age of 65 to enroll in the Federal employees health benefits program. This is the same insurance program that all of us have. All we want to do is to make it available to military retires on a limited demonstration basis to see whether this will meet the demand. We want to determine what the cost will be, how much acceptance there will be, whether it is going to work. Now, I can go on and on, I have got plenty of compelling arguments. I am not going to, because I know there is a lot of support for this. Let me just say that the military coalition and virtually every military group has endorsed this. I have introduced legislation as well that would establish the program nationwide, and that has over 75 co- sponsors. But this amendment today would simply give us the kind of information that we need to make sure we are doing the right thing, and we know it is the fair thing, we know that there is some urgency to do it because this policy is effectively excluding people that really need medical treatment today.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 230 on H.R. 3603 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' personal explanation

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, during Rollcall Vote No. 222 on H.R. 3364 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, let me respond a bit to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. I certainly have no criticism of the statement by Ms. Shelton, who is a professional of great integrity, and particularly under the recent circumstances, I would not want to say anything in the least bit critical. I do not think that there is any question but that that is an absolutely accurate statement. However, it does not necessarily imply irresponsibility or ``nonsense,'' I think is the word that the gentleman from Indiana used. The U.S. Agency for International Development has been under the gun to make sure that their money is spent as carefully as possible so that there is full, complete accountability. In order to do that, it oftentimes requires that you delay grants, that you delay the money that is put out in the field until you get exactly that kind of project that you want. I think their concern was that there are a lot of countries in great need of assistance who are not getting that assistance because of the conscientious attitude that they have taken. When you look at the child survival programs, for example, or the micro enterprise programs, they require a lot of analysis, a lot of staff people making sure that that money is spent well. I suspect, though, that you would have at least as many detractors if the money had not been spent when you look at the need throughout the world, particularly in the developing countries. Now, this amendment that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has, would substantially cut the ability of AID to manage these programs, particularly child survival and micro enterprise and a number of the education and democracy efforts that we are attempting in developing countries. We have already set in motion a reduction of 440 staff people in AID. This would cut us to more than 600 people who would have to be let go, most of them out in the field. That means that our programs in child survival, micro enterprise, all of the programs that we agree are needed and appropriate when we look at them individually would not be able to be managed, and I do not think that the administration or the Congress want programs out there that cannot be managed. In fact, I am told by AID that if the Burton amendment passes, with that reduction, it is likely that the agency would have to shut down its operations at some point during this fiscal year for lack of funds. I do not think that is what we want. Let me move off of the Burton amendment, because I think we are going to have another opportunity to discuss that at some length. I want to address the bill itself. Mr. Speaker, we recently agreed that we would increase defense spending by $12 billion above the President's request. Now, this bill in its total comes in less than $12 billion. It comes in at $11.9 billion, a full $1 billion reduction below the budget request, but it is approximately equal to the amount of money we added to defense over and a above what the Pentagon requested. I would ask for help from the majority leadership on this, because I think they are aware of an attitude that is increasing that our policy is basically isolationist. I cannot believe that the leadership feels that it ought to be, but this is certainly the signal that is sent with this bill. When you consider the fact that half of this bill is $5 billion, which goes to Israel and Egypt, for which we do not require any accountability for how the money is spent, the other half has to be divided among the rest of the world. And when you look at the amount of money we spend on aid to developing countries, it is .15 percent of our gross domestic product, .0015 of out total national economy. Imagine that. Now, that is the least amount that any developed country contributes to the other developing countries of the world, and we have the most at stake. We are going to benefit the most by creating the purchasing capabilities of other countries because that equates to market opportunities in the United States. So talk about being penny-wise and pound-foolish. We are the world's leader; there is no question about that. The rest of the world looks to us for leadership. This is not the way to lead.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of my friend and colleague from Indiana. This amendment would cut another $47 million from the Agency for International Development's operating expenses. I would just like to make three quick points. First, further cuts in operating expenses would destroy many benefits of the streamlining efforts that have been ongoing for much of the past two years. The fact is that USAID has already been achieving savings. Many posts have closed and 3,000 staff positions have been cut since 1993. Indeed, this year AID is in the process of closing another 24 more missions. This is a very fiscally responsible agency. Second, these cuts would cause major disruptions in policy and program management. Morale would suffer, and many capable employees of the agency would seek jobs outside government rather than work in an atmosphere of reduced effectiveness, not to mention the increased number of RIFs, already at 200 for FY 96. Third, cuts in operating expenses undermines AID's ability to effectively promote U.S. interests. We will be less effective in helping to promote democracy and market reforms in the third world. We will be less effective in facilitating economic growth in developing countries, encouraging new markets for U.S. companies, and addressing serious global problems such as rapid population growth, environmental degradation, and the spread of disease and crime. Mr. Chairman, AID's goals are our foreign policy goals and cannot be achieved without adequate resources for their operating expenses. This amendment is short sighted. It ignores significant savings already achieved and most importantly it is utterly misguided nationally policy.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons why the substitute offered by the gentleman from California ought to be approved by this House, but let me just name two. First, at a time when this Nation should be marching boldly into the information age, the Science Committee has reported a timid bill that is wholly inadequate to the technological challenges that confront us. This bill reported by the Science Committee cuts $1.2 billion from the President's science and technology request. Basic research alone is $170 million below the President's request. This bill is plainly not the best we can do. It will make it harder for us to harness the enormous promise of the information age, to conduct the basic research that will make America more productive, and to improve the scientific proficiency of American schoolchildren. Second, this bill is a slap in the face to the dedicated Federal workers who administer our research portfolio. This includes employees of NASA, NOAA, and the National Science Foundation. For the NSF alone, it actually cuts $7 million from the agency's salaries and expenses. This cut is made despite the fact that the NSF has one of the best records in Government of holding its costs down. Only 4 percent of the NSF's budget goes to internal operations. During the past decade, the NSF work force has remained constant in the face of a doubling of its workload. How does the Science Committee propose to reward this outstanding record? With a cut in salaries and expenses that will cause the loss of as many as 120 positions from the agency, that's how. The Brown substitute restores these cuts and assures that the NSF and other agencies will have the resources they need to administer the agency's enormous research program effectively. Mr. Speaker, when the leadership of this House closed the Government down at Christmas, there was a picture that appeared in many newspapers. It showed the mailroom of the National Science Foundation piling up with research proposals. When we finally ended that shutdown and reopened American Government, the scientists and engineers at the NSF went quietly back to work, cleared out the backlog, and got our civilian science program back on its feet. It's just plain wrong to now cut what has plainly been an exceedingly well-run agency. I urge my colleagues to support the Brown substitute. 1800

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, today I have the distinct pleasure of recognizing the 1996 Honor Immigrant Americans Day Award recipients from the Eight Congressional District in Virginia. These citizens were honored last month in northern Virginia. The first annual Honor Immigrant Americans Day Awards banquet was hosted by the Organization of Chinese Americans. Founded in 1973, the Organization of Chinese Americans is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization that promotes equal opportunity for all Asian Americans. This group works tirelessly to end prejudice toward Asian Americans and ignorance of their unique culture. The purpose of this celebration was to recognize the outstanding contributions that immigrant Americans have made to northern Virginia. The following citizens were awarded the Corporate Award for their outstanding achievements in both the workplace and in the community at large: Ms. Nettie B. Garcia of Inova Health System, for her innovative approach to Inova Health Systems and active volunteerism in the Hispanic community over the past 18 years; Chong Ja Park, registered nurse, for her outstanding achievement in passing the Virginia State nursing boards within 1 year of immigrating to the United States and for her interpreting skills; Madeline Li, BTG software developer, for her success in achieving senior level developer status; Margaret Turek, BTG software engineer, for her rapid advancement to the level of senior director of technical resources. The following citizens received at-large awards for outstanding lifelong achievement in the community: Andres Burgoa, for his work in the American Embassy in Bolivia and the Defense Contract Audit Agency; Toa Quang Do, for his distinguished career as an entrepreneur, consultant, and community volunteer; Alam Hammad, Ph.D., business administration, GWU, for his efforts as a political activist, work on numerous political campaigns, and participation in the community. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to recognize these very distinguished immigrant American citizens. Their many accomplishments and contributions serve as an example of excellence to all Americans to strive to do better both in the workplace and in our communities. I extend my warmest congratulations and best wishes for the future to all of the 1996 Immigrant Americans Day Award recipients.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this resolution, and commend the chairman of the committee for bringing this timely and well-deserved tribute to the people of Sierra Leone before the House. I particularly want to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] for his informative and insightful remarks, and for his very caring attitude on the part of the Third World peoples of Africa. This spring's elections were deemed free and fair by international observers, and a democratically elected president now does govern Sierra Leone. This election is especially noteworthy in that an African military government held elections and peacefully turned over power. So we want this example to serve as a model for other such nations, and that is why this resolution is particularly important. We hope that will also give impetus to the peace talks that are currently occurring in Sierra Leone. So we urge strong support for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. 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 myself such time as I may consume. We rise in strong support of this resolution and commend the chairman for bringing it before the House. We want to commend the humanitarian relief organizations and the individuals who have cared for the victims of the Chernobyl disaster. Their work has been supported by U.S., European and other international assistance. Over the last 4 years, the United States has sent $100 million worth of humanitarian and medical assistance to Ukraine. U.S. assistance has also helped provide Ukraine with alternative energy sources that would facilitate the closing of nuclear power stations. On this anniversary, the United States also garnered private donations for a combined government-private package of humanitarian and medical assistance for the region's victims. The international community, including G-7, obligated $3 billion in grants and loans for power sector restructuring, least-cost energy investments, nuclear safety and a plan addressing the social impact of Chernobyl's closure. We are also pleased with the Government of Ukraine's commitment to closing the Chernobyl power station in a safe manner by the year 2000. Ukraine faces tremendous concerns with regard to finding energy sources. Yet, achieving nuclear safety is key for Ukraine. It is also one of the most important goals for its European neighbors and the United States. Mr. Speaker, the chairman mentioned that the destructive power of Chernobyl was greater than Hiroshima. I understand it was 400 times as large and that nuclear radiation has actually gone up into the atmosphere and may very well be affecting all of us. So this is a very important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chief Democratic whip of the House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], who is also a very strong supporter of the resolution commemorating the 205th anniversary of the adoption of Poland's first constitution.

Mr. MORAN. 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 thank my friend and colleague from California, Mr. Beilenson, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, one cannot believe that the American consumer will not see through this. Why would the majority not agree to an amendment to ensure that the 4.3 cents goes to the consumer? What is wrong with that? We quote some of the executives of oil companies that say they will do it. If that is the case, it would not hurt them. Why not build that into the law? Now the reality is that gas prices are gong to drop. The fact is that gas prices are going to drop substantially in the very near future. We just got an agreement that Iraq will be able to sell 2 billion barrels of oil, so we know gas prices are going to drop dramatically. But this will ensure that we will lose $3 billion of revenue this year if we build it into the budget resolution. We have been talking about $30 billion over the long term, but if it is just 1 year, it is $3 billion that the consumer has to pay for. It increases their deficit, it reduces revenue that they will get from spectrum auctions or whatever else. It does not need to be done. It should not be done. The fact is that 6 months ago oil prices were at the lowest level in 50 years in terms of real dollars, and that oil prices dropped after the 4.3 gas tax was put in, so this spike in gas prices has nothing to do with this 4.3 cent tax. It has everything to do with a calculated decision on the part of the oil companies. Even knowing that we had experienced a very harsh winter, that demand for oil was going to go way up, they deliberately depleted their supplies, and it worked. If we look at the first quarter profits for oil companies, they have been up over 40 percent in the first 3 months of the year, and of course the executives that run those oil companies made out beautifully. Consider that the average salaries and expenses for the top six oil companies was $1.5 million per executive. But in addition, just in March and April alone, the value of their stock options rose by $32.8 million as a direct result of this policy. It worked. Now we hear about the free market system. What free market system? If it was really a free market system, we would see some oil companies coming in and trying to seize a larger share of the market because clearly they do not need to charge this much. If we look at California, where gasoline prices have jumped more than 30 cents a gallon since mid February, the Los Angeles Times reported that the refiners' profit margin per gallon of gasoline sold at retail has more than doubled since December. The profit margin more than doubled from 21 cents per gallon to 46 cents per gallon. That is where the money is going. The money is not gong to purchase the oil. The money if going into the profit of the oil companies, a calculated decision. Now we are going to come around and add $3 billion to the taxpayers' debt to reduce their gas taxes? It does not need to be done. We know that gas prices are going to drop because of Iraq selling more oil on the market. This kind of thing is a sham. It is political pandering. It ought not be done. We ought to protect the consumer's interest. We should at least allow an amendment to ensure that the money goes to the consumer.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, since we have no objection. In fact, we strongly support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I do so to give some credit to President Clinton for his strong action in moving battleships into the Strait of Taiwan to ensure that the democratic election would take place without intimidation from mainland China. This is consistent with the very strong continuing support of the White House for this democratic election in Taiwan, which is also consistent with the strong support on the part of the Democrats in this Congress for democracy in Taiwan.