Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and commend the chairman of the committee for bringing it before the House, and the strong supporter of Polish interests, the gentleman from Buffalo, NY, Mr. Jack Quinn; and the other cosponsors, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Borski, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Flanagan, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kleczka, and others. It is appropriate that the House and the people of the United States congratulate the Polish people around the world, including Americans of Polish descent, on the 205th anniversary of the adoption of the first Polish constitution. The, as now, Poland has been a leader in Europe. In 1989, Poland took the first steps toward breaking up the Warsaw Pact and held the first free elections in Eastern Europe. That led the way on comprehensive economic reform. Poland is now striving to integrate itself fully into the family of western nations. All of us can take a measure of pride in Poland's achievements, which serve the U.S. interests in peace, security, and prosperity in Europe. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I will not bite at some of the partisan references that were made. Let me just stick to the issue here. All Americans celebrate the remarkable political journey from autocracy to democracy that Taiwan has made in recent years. Taiwan's presidential election in march signalled that Taiwan has joined the ranks of full-figured democracy. Taiwan stands as an inspiration and an example for other Asian peoples who do not yet fully enjoy the fruits of political freedom. The people of Taiwan deserve our commendation and our congratulations. So, too, does President Lee, whose inauguration yesterday promises a new day not only for Taiwanese democracy but also for improved relations between Taiwan and mainland China. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished statesman from New York [Mr. Payne], to share with us a small part of his encyclopedic knowledge of the peoples and countries of Africa. (Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, the grave situation that exists in the Republic of Kosova. In this tenuous post-Dayton agreement environment, the United States cannot idly stand by and wait for this volatile situation to reach a crisis point. We must press for a moral and equitable resolution to the Kosova question. I urge everyone in this Chamber to read this speech by Dr. Bukoshi; his scholarly point of view and firsthand knowledge present the Kosova issue in a succinct and edifying way. The speech reads as follows: Ignoring the Lessons of History in the Balkans (By Dr. Bujar Bukoshi) In the aftermath of the Dayton Accords, there remains significant unfinished business to be handled by the international community. Among this unfinished business is the Kosova crisis. Dayton recognized this reality. In fact, the document was quite specific with respect to conditions that must be met by Serbia-Montenegro before the so-called ``Outer Wall'' of diplomatic, political and financial sanctions against the Slobodan Milosevic regime would be lifted. Regrettably, recent events confirm that some European countries who signed the Accords have violated them by prematurely extending diplomatic recognition to Serbia- Montenegro. In doing so, Europe is setting the stage for a new conflict. It should also be noted that with respect to implementing the Dayton Accords in Bosnia, the so-called ``Republika Srpska'' has been extended de facto recognition, as NATO in many instances has adopted what some have described as a ``can't do'' attitude toward implementation that has allowed ``Republika Srpska'' to escape many provisions of the Accords. In effect, the indicted war criminals [Radovan] Karadzic and [Ratko] Mladic have won virtual statehood for ``Republika Srpska.'' They have received something where there was nothing. In contrast with this is Kosova, which was recognized as one of the eight political units of former Yugoslavia with the rights and responsibilities accorded by that status. How can the world expect Kosova, which had a distinct and existing statehood, to now have nothing? In Bosnia, and now by extending diplomatic recognition to the forces of evil in Belgrade, some European countries have exhibited a moral bankruptcy that should shock those who are committed to peace, human rights, fairness, and justice. Albanians in Kosova take such action as an insult that will lead nowhere. By extending the mantle of diplomatic recognition at the present time and under the present geographic shape, the situation will lead to new crisis. Recognition will never defuse the situation. To the contrary, it sends a very bad message to the Albanians who, for seven long years, have endured the apartheid imposed by the Milosevic regime. The message is simply this: Those who exhibit anti-social behavior, who practice ethnic cleansing and perpetrate the worst crimes against humanity since World War II will be rewarded. Those who have fought oppression, who have stood for freedom and democracy, who have resisted peacefully, will be punished. In a cynical view of the situation, some European countries seem intent on rewarding evil and punishing good. Although some European leaders have capitulated to the sinister forces in Belgrade, the U.S. has--up until now-- maintained constant, consistent and committed. And we hope it will continue to do so. In my meeting with high-level State Department officials Monday, they reiterated that the U.S. is not prepared to recognize Belgrade, and that the ``Outer Wall'' sanctions will remain in place. They reaffirmed strong U.S. support for the non-violent approach of the Kosova leadership in dealing with Serbian repression in Kosova. They affirmed that the Kosova issue is very high on the agenda and reconfirmed their desire to be helpful in finding a peaceful solution. They said the U.S. would continue to work with its allies in pursuit of such a solution. The U.S. position reflects an understanding of the lessons of the past in the Balkans. Let us remember that in World War I and World War II it was America that finally entered the conflict and brought an end to the fighting. Throughout the four decades of the Cold War, it was the U.S. through its leadership of NATO that insured the peace and the collapse of Communism. In Bosnia, the protracted conflict continued until America took the initiative, brought the aggressor together with the victims, and hammered out the Dayton Accords. We believe that U.S. leaders are looking at Kosova as an opportunity for American leadership to be exerted before there is a slaughter. This pro-active strategy would work, provided America maintained the fortitude to finish the job. As we move ahead in this post-Dayton period, the international community would be well advised to recognize the new realities and to remember the lessons of history. Kosova is a state, and its political future must be determined by its 2.2 million people. Serbia-Montenegro is a pariah outcast. Evil must not be rewarded. You don't make the criminal the policeman. Serbia cannot and should not be granted mini-super power status. If Serbia strengthens its alliance with a new Russian coalition, the so-called ``USSR-II,'' that may result from the June elections in Russia, a new Cold War may emerge, and the very Serbia that some Europeans rush to recognize today will become an enemy again, only this time more brutal, more sinister and more potent. Serbia wants to have it both ways: To become militarily strong through arms from Russia, and to become economically powerful through ties to the West. It cannot have it both ways. Baroness Margaret Thatcher said it best last August in Aspen, Colorado: ``So what does history teach us? To me the most significant lesson is: Never appease an aggressor. If we do, he will only grow stronger and more confident, and to secure his ultimate defeat will require greater effort and greater sacrifice.'' The lessons of history are clear. Those who fail to learn from mistakes of history are bound to repeat them. For our part, the Albanians of Kosova would like to continue to peacefully pursue freedom, justice and democracy. This is our hope. This is our intention.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the coalition budget. The coalition budget is a fair and steady approach toward a balanced budget in 2002. It adds $137 billion less than the Republican plan to the debt because it does not delay the majority of the spending cuts to the last 2 years. The resolutions before us today are just numbers, but attached to these numbers are fundamental policy assumptions. While it is encouraging to see the Republicans abandon some of the extreme cuts in last year's budget and bring their numbers closer to the coalition's budget, they retain many of the same dangerous and radical policy assumptions. The Republicans offer $168 billion in Medicare savings, while the coalition plan offers $146 billion in savings. The differences, however, are more than the $21 billion would suggest. The coalition budget achieves greater savings from means-testing the Medicare part B premium for upper income beneficiaries by using existing methods to collect the premiums. The Republican proposal assumes essentially the same provider cuts that were contained in the reconciliation bill that was vetoed last year. Both proposals provide Medicare beneficiaries with increased choice of private options. The coalition budget, however, protects seniors in rural and other under-served areas and protects seniors from managed care plans charging beneficiaries additional amounts beyond the part B premium. It also appropriately limits the radical medical savings account proposal to a demonstration program. The $2 billion difference between the Republican $72 billion cut and the coalition's $70 billion cut from Medicaid masks the fact that the Republican plan permits States to cut their Medicaid funding by an additional $178 billion, seriously undermining our commitment to the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. We can cut Medicaid growth without eliminating the guaranteed coverage to the poor, the disabled, and the elderly, and the coalition budget does. We can balance the budget without eliminating the Departments of Commerce and Energy; and the coalition budget does so. We can save $42 billion from welfare programs while at the same time meet the Governors' request for providing adequate funding child care so that the parents can return to work. We can reduce fraud in the earned income tax credit without imposing a tax increase of $20 billion on the working poor. Mr. Speaker for the those and a host of other reasons I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and support the coalition budget.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, has anyone noticed what has happened to the stocks of oil companies in this country? Their profits have gone up phenomenally. Exxon made $2 billion in the last 3 months. Other companies have shown profits in the range of 40 percent. Unprecedented profits. Of course, it is all a result of a corporate decision, knowing that we had had a very harsh winter, that if they deliberately reduced their reserves and knowing there was going to be strong demand, they would be able to push the price way up. Of course they can all get together and increase the price at the pump so that consumers pay for this increase, and boy, has it paid off. Look at the corporate executive of the six largest oil companies. Their stock options alone in the last 60 days have increased by $33 million. Unbelievable. But should we really let the consumer pay for these profits? Of course not. To think that the consequences of their decision is going to be paid by consumers is unconscionable.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, it is immoral to stand by while a quarter of a million people are massacred as victims of genocide. Maybe that is why for the last 2 years the Congress has not done anything about the information that it had in June 1994. The Congress reads the papers. It listens to its colleagues on the floor of the House and Senate. In June 1994, Senator McCain said clearly, unequivocally: Croatia has become a major transit point for covert Iranian arms shipments to Bosnia with the tacit approval of the Clinton administration, which publicly remains opposed to a unilateral lifting of the international arms embargo. Senator McCain said that to all the Senate. The House was aware of that information, and yet for 2 years no Member of the House or the Senate has asked for a hearing. No Member of the House or the Senate objected to what they knew the administration was doing. We said nothing. We are the ones who kept quiet about it. I think that there is good reason why we kept quiet about it. For one thing, the majority would have as a reason that they might be embarrassed that it was the Bush administration that lost Yugoslavia, and it was the Bush administration that supported the U.N. Security Council resolution that imposed the arms embargo in the first place. That arms embargo was supposed to apply to Serbia and Croatia, who were the aggressors in the conflict, who had plenty of arms, who had access to plenty of arms. But in effect the arms embargo only applied to Bosnia, who did not have sufficient arms to protect itself, who did not have access to arms, so it was an unfair policy. Because it was such an unfair policy, this House of Representatives put itself on record 3 months after the Clinton administration was aware that the arms might go into Bosnia, we put ourselves on record demanding that the Clinton administration do just what we are today accusing them of doing. We told the President not to use any appropriated funds to enforce the arms embargo, and 3 months later it became law. We legally required the Clinton administration to do exactly what we are now accusing them of doing, and it was an overwhelming vote in both the House and Senate. I think that we should also be careful, and I do not want to offer any advice to the other side, but to bring up the Iran-Contra situation in this context I think is a serious mistake, because the Iran-Contra situation was clearly illegal. This was not illegal. The Clinton administration did not supply any arms to Bosnia. It did not take any overt activity. But it was illegal for the Reagan administration to sell arms to Iran and then to use the money subsequently for another illegal operation. We should not waste the taxpayers' money on this politically inspired witch hunt.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I was not here when we had the Iran-Contra investigation of clearly illegal activities, but I was here when the new Republican majority took over the Congress with promises to slash congressional spending, to cut committees, to reduce staff, to eliminate duplication, to reform the legislative process. Now we have a proposal that does just the opposite of all those promises. In that process of eliminating committees and slashing congressional expenses, the majority eliminated the two subcommittees that would have had jurisdiction over this matter, the Europe and Asia Subcommittees of the International Relations Committee. The purpose of that was to save half a million dollars over the entire year. The average subcommittee spends $189,000 over a 6-month period. This subcommittee will spend $1 million over a 6-month period. It will be the most expensive subcommittee in the entire Congress, more expensive than the health, Social Security, crime, and military readiness subcommittees. Any of those other subcommittees pale by comparison to what we are going to spend here. In fact, this spending is understated. I grant you there is a line for new RCA color TV's and other things like that, bottled water, but there is not an inclusion for money for the travel for the witnesses. That is a major expense. I think this amount of $1 million is understated. But we already spend $3.2 million and we employ 132 staff people to review U.S. foreign policy. We have three committees that are looking into the Bosnia issue. Talk about creating more duplication. Do we really need a fourth committee that is going to be more expensive than any of the other subcommittees in the entire Congress? I cannot imagine why. The other reason why this proposal does not make sense, is that in the very same year that this activity took place, which no one has even alleged is illegal, but in that very same year we passed a law that says ``no funds appropriated by any provision of law may be used for the purpose of participation in, support for or assistance to the enforcement of the Bosnia arms embargo by any department, agency, or other entity of the United States.'' That was congressional will. We passed that in the very year that these alleged decisions took place. I do not even understand the allegation, to be honest with you. There is clearly no illegal activity involved. The President did not do anything. We did not violate any arms embargo. We did not send any arms. The reality is the administration did exactly what the Congress wanted them to do. Do not waste another $1 million of the taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman from New York very much for including my bill in the manager's amendment. We call it ``one strike and you are out, part two,'' because what it does is to extend the provisions that were cast earlier and President Clinton signed into law with a great deal of support from the White House to enable us to evict drug and alcohol abusers and those that are engaged in criminal activity from all types of federally subsidized housing. Fot too long, drug dealers and other criminals have found a haven in low-income housing projects, and although the 1990 act makes some progress in the public housing area, it did not apply to all subsidized housing. This manager's amendment closes the most egregious loophole in public housing. It grants public housing authorities and private owners of Section 8 properties new powers to screen and evict problem tenants. As my colleagues know, there are 1.4 million public housing units, while there are 2.1 million section 8 publicly assisted housing units, and the fact is that residents of project 8, section 8 and FHA-insured multifamily housing have had virtually no protection from drug dealers that live next door and threaten their health and safety on a daily basis. They deserve equal protection under the law. Mr. Chairman, what we are going to do with this legislation is to see to it that drug dealers will be subject to eviction from public housing whenever they deal their drugs and wherever they deal their drugs, but it will also enable managers of section 8 properties to effectively screen prospective tenants before those tenants are involved in drug dealing or criminal activity. It is a lot easier if we can keep them out of subsidized housing than waiting until they commit crimes. Section 8 managers will be able to conduct criminal background checks and match an applicant's name against information from the National Crime Information Center. We have got a long waiting list of people that deserve subsidized housing and very much need it. We cannot afford to be giving housing units to people who terrorize their neighbors. This manager's amendment will put an end to that practice.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commend the Arlington County Civic Federation on the occasion of its 80th anniversary celebration. Founded in 1916 by a coalition of six neighborhood associations which saw the wisdom of working together on issues of common concern, the federation is now comprised of 68 civic organizations. It stands as the oldest countywide organization in Arlington. As its bylaws indicate, the object of the federation shall be to promote the general welfare of Arlington County and vicinity in nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and nonpolitical manner. Its success speaks for itself. As a review of its records chronicle, practically all major improvements the county enjoys today are the result of actions initiated or supported by the federation. It is truly the civic voice of Arlington when it debates topics and presents its views to county officials, State legislators and those of us in Congress. The federation also sponsors a candidate and congressional night to keep elected officials accountable to those who elect them. As a participant in Congress Night, I am well aware of the vital role this organization plays in our community. Scott McGeary, whose interest in public affairs began as a Page in the U.S. Senate, has served as president of the federation for the past 2 years. He has been joined in federation leadership by vice president William F. Nolden, secretary Tommye Morton, treasurer John F. Nicholas, Jr., executive committee chairman Frances Finta, vice chairman Timothy Wise, and members Rohan Samaraweena, Sue Zajac and Larry Zaragoza. Supplemented by a legion of 14 active committees, they have addressed a wide range of local, State and Federal issues this year in keeping with the tradition of effective citizen activism. For the entirety of its 80-year history, the federation has functioned as a sounding board for all citizens on matters of civic interest. It truly represents the grass roots opinions of its member organizations. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to note the anniversary celebration of the federation and congratulate this valued organization on its many contributions to public affairs.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation extending the ``One Strike You're Out'' provisions to screen and evict drug and alcohol abusers in public and tenant-based section 8 housing to all types of low-income, rent-subsidized housing. For too long, drug dealers and other criminals have plagued low- income housing projects. Despite Federal policies that date back to 1988, a number of legal loopholes have enabled criminals to evade eviction. The new law closes these loopholes and grants housing authorities new powers to screen and evict problem tenants. I was pleased to see that the Housing Opportunity and Extension Act [S. 1494] included my language closing several legal loophole that enabled drug dealers and problem tenants to evade the expedited eviction procedures in public housing. I have a personal interest in the expedited eviction procedure dating back to my service as mayor of the city of Alexandria. Unfortunately, it took the tragic death of Alexandria police officer Charlie Hill in 1989 before HUD responded with an expedited eviction procedure for public housing residents. I tried to deal with his death in the most constructive way possible and sought a waiver from then Secretary Jack Kemp to expedite the eviction of known drug dealers from public housing. The police and the community knew who the drug dealers were, but every time they attempted to do something, they were stymied by the legal aid advocates. Fortunately, Alexandria was successful and the city's public housing units are a far different place to live today. The expedited eviction procedure works but it needed to be strengthened further. The work begun following officer Hill's death, however, is not yet complete. The new law fails to cover residents living in federally- assisted housing. Residents in project-based section 8 and FHA insured multifamily housing have no similar protection today when drug dealers threaten their health and safety. There are approximately 1.4 million public housing units, while there are more than 2.1 million section 8 publicly assisted housing units. Residents of these 2.1 million units deserve equal protection under the law. With enactment of this legislation, tenants, victimized by drug dealers and others who threaten their safety and well being, will receive equal protection. With enactment of this legislation, drug dealers in project-based section 8 housing will no longer be able to ply their trade outside the project's boundary where they were erroneously exempt from the expedited eviction procedure. And, ignorance of a fellow tenant's illegal drug activity will no longer be exclusive grounds to exempt a lease-holder from the expedited eviction procedure. Ignorance of illegal drug activity should not, by itself, be grounds for exempting a tenant from the expedited eviction procedure. Too often the actual knowledge standard is an easy way out for the tenant. It also encourages lease holders to avoid knowing what members of their family or other persons under their roof are doing. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is good public policy. It's good for the tenants, it's good for the neighbors and it's good for the managers and owners. It is also important that as we shift from Government-run public housing to community-based vouchers and assistance, we need to provide communities with the tools to enforce the laws and foster good responsible neighbors. This legislation helps bring us closer to this goal.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. MORAN. I appreciate that clarification, Mr. Speaker, But the point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, is the support that this country has for foreign aid, more support than it is obvious to us when we listen to the debate. The fact is that most Americans think we should be spending five times what we are spending for foreign aid. The fact is that AID is a principal funnel for that foreign aid. I do think that their mission would be compromised if in fact they are consolidated within the State Department. We ought not wait for a disaster to act, because then the costs are going to be much higher. We ought not revert to the isolationist attitude of the 1930's. What happens in one part of the world can happen in our part of the world. We should not forsake our leadership role in this world. We should be eager to lead this world to promote our interests. The United States is the world's leader. We have earned that position, not just because we have the strongest military, but because our diplomacy is so effective. Our political and cultural values are widely shared, and our economic system is emulated around the world. The reason is because in the past we have had bipartisan support in Congress and in the administration for a sound appropriation for the managing of our foreign affairs. But with leadership comes responsibilities. I do not think this bill meets them. We just heard from the AID administrator, Brian Atwood, in the Committee on International Relations. He has cut over 17 percent of his personnel at AID, from 11,000 to 8,700 since President Clinton was elected. That is the second largest cut in the Federal Government. I do not think that cut would have happened if it was part of the State Department. The administration has already implemented significant steps to reinvent our international operations and reduce costs to the taxpayers. We have asked the government to cut waste, to reduce programs, and to freeze future planning. This administration has responded vigorously with a scalpel, cutting away the fat and the dead tissue. The problem with this bill is that it hacks away at the muscle and vital organs with a cleaver. It is all posturing and politics to be able to say we eliminated an agency, whatever that agency might be. We are given three choices, but we have to eliminate one of them. It is an artificial savings. It harms not only the body politic, but more importantly, the head of this world in terms of foreign policy, in terms of advancing democracy, advancing truth throughout the world. We ought not do this. This is a step backward. We have need to be moving forward into a global economy and advancing our democratic interests, creating more purchasing capabilities in Third World countries that in turn result in market opportunities for our firms. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sustain this veto.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge this body to sustain the President's veto of this neoisolationist foreign aid bill called the American Overseas Interests Act. We all know this bill proposes deep cuts in our foreign assistance budget and wants to dismantle either the Agency for International Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, or the U.S. Information Agency. But what we do not adequately appreciate is the important and distinct responsibilities that all these agencies perform on a day-to-day basis. Those functions and responsibilities will not be performed in the same independent nor effective manner as they are now performed if they are combined within the administrative structure of the State Department. Some of their mission and independence will be compromised. It is wrong for us to restrict this or any other President's ability to address the complex international challenges and opportunities of the post-cold-war era. At issue is whether the United States will have the policies and the resources available to open markets, to prevent conflicts, to advance our national interests through people-to-people contacts by broadcasting the truth as an antidote to the poison of extremist propaganda, and to prevent crisis through humanitarian aid. The United States must continue to lead this world. We should not turn our back on a half-century of success. Our past strong investment and a vigorous foreign policy continues to pay enormous dividends: The end of the Soviet Union, a world map dominated with democracies and allies, expanding markets, especially in the Third World, and free elections in South Africa, just to mention a few. This bill undermines our leadership role in the world. To cut development aid will ultimately cost the United States more in the form of foregone markets, increasing demands for disaster relief, worsening environmental conditions and rising migration pressures. Foreign aid is an important, cost-effective investment in the future. About 1 percent of the Federal budget is actually spent on foreign aid. Yet, Members have heard time and time again that most of our constituents think that it is about 15 percent of our budget that we spend, and believe it should be around 5 percent.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, today we commemorate the 26th anniversary of Earth Day and recommit ourselves to protecting and improving our environment. We celebrate the progress we have made in cleaning our air and our water. We recognize, however, that we still have much more to do to ensure that our natural resources are preserved and protected for future generations. It is in this spirit of protecting and preserving our environment that I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide greater protection for our ground and surface water against leaks from aboveground petroleum storage tanks [AST's]. Currently there are approximately half a million aboveground storage tanks located throughout this country. According to the Environmental Defense Fund [EDF], between 20 and 25 percent of AST's nationwide are leaking, posing threats to our ground water and surface water. In northern Virginia, we learned all too well the problems that leaking tanks can cause. In September 1990, a petroleum sheen was discovered in a neighborhood creek in a Fairfax, VA, community. It was the beginning of a continuing nightmare for a number of local residents, who had to live with the knowledge that more than 200,000 gallons of petroleum products had seeped into their ground water and spread underneath their community, posing risks of fire and explosion. Home values plummeted, many people living in the community suffered from respiratory ailments, and Star Enterprise, a Texaco affiliate, spent more than $100 million cleaning the leak and settling claims. No one wants these leaks to occur. But, unfortunately they do. Problems with leaking AST's are not restricted to northern Virginia. Leaks have occurred across the Nation, from Anchorage, AK, to Everglades, FL. I have introduced comprehensive AST legislation in the past to address these leaks. In this session of Congress, I have moved away from the idea of a comprehensive regulatory program for AST's. Instead of duplicating efforts undertaken by States and the petroleum industry to improve AST safety, this bill builds on and enhances those efforts. This bill represents a commonsense approach to ensuring better management of AST's. It acknowledges that five different Federal offices currently regulate AST's and that tankowners feel overwhelmed and overburdened by duplicative regulations. To address these concerns, the bill requires the EPA to consolidate AST offices within EPA. In performing that consolidation, EPA must review all regulations that currently apply to ASTs and eliminate those that are duplicative. This consolidation will lead to simplification of the regulatory program and will ensure that tankowners understand the current regulations with which they must comply. By improving the organization of the current AST program we allow EPA to do more with less. We also permit tank owners the opportunity to benefit from a streamlined, understandable regulatory structure. In 1995, the General Accounting Office conducted a study of the AST regulatory program and identified seven areas where the program needed improvement. The bill provides EPA the authority to correct those deficiencies in federal law identified by the GAO. Any new regulations must be designed in the most cost-effective manner and substantial weight must be given to current industry standards. This needed regulatory reform will improve the effectiveness of current regulations, lead to greater prevention and containment of releases from AST's and improve the environment. This new, streamlined approach to AST regulation has been developed with the guidance and input of a diverse coalition of industry and environmental groups, from the American Petroleum Institute, to the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, to the Environmental Defense Fund. Together, we have drafted a bill which both industry and environmental groups can support. I am proud to have both Congressman Davis and Congresswoman Morella as original cosponsors of this legislation. In addition, I want to thank Senator Robb for his work on similar legislation which has bipartisan support in the Senate. This bill is a commonsense proposal to help improve our environment through regulatory reform. I look forward to working with my House colleagues and with the chairman of the relevant congressional committees to ensure that this legislation becomes a reality.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, a year ago, a 12-year-old boy by the name of Iqbal Masih was murdered in Pakistan because he had dared to speak out against child slave labor. Iqbal had been sold by his father for $16 when he was 4 years old. He was chained to a loom. When he made a mistake, he was savagely beaten. With the help of an American firm, he escaped and spoke out against this practice, which is actually on the rise in Asia and Africa and Latin America, because there is so much profit to be made by exploiting children that poor governments are very easily corrupted. He tried to make a difference. He was murdered. But it is up to us to follow his lead, to show his courage. Today in honor of Iqbal and the millions of children who work as forced laborers, I am proud to introduce the Working Children's Rights Act. It will deny U.S. foreign aid to countries that refuse to enforce their own labor laws, it will deny aid to governments that continue to violate the most basic human rights of children, and it will require the State Department to investigate corruption and provide for yearly hearings, so that we will never forget the terrible plight faced by millions of children like Iqbal Masih.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, there are at least five very good reasons to vote ``no'' on this ill-advised constitutional amendment. The first is that it is a classic example of pure political posturing. At the very beginning of this session of Congress we passed legislation, a rule that said that we would require three-fifths votes to raise taxes, and every single time that rule was to apply, the majority had the rule waived. So we cannot even abide by the rule that exists now, and we want to make it into a constitutional amendment so that we cannot even waive the rule. Imagine what would have happened with all of the tax legislation that passed for the last 20 years if we had had this rule. There was only one minor piece of legislation that would have passed. Second, it is fiscally irresponsible. It makes it almost impossible to raise revenue to reduce the deficit, whether it is to cut capital gains taxes, which would increase revenue in the initial years, or particularly to close corporate and individual tax loopholes. We cannot do that under this legislation. Third, it really shows contempt for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. They debated this many times and they decided that the Articles of Confederation, article 9, which required a supermajority to increase revenue, was not working, that the minority was thwarting the will of the majority. And so in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention they decided, they voted that they had to have a pure political majority for this democracy to work. The Constitution is not some rough working draft. It is a body of law that has served this Nation better than any Constitution has served any nation in the history of mankind. For 200 years it has made us the most democratic, the strongest nation on Earth, and now we want to mess around with it, with this kind of constitutional graffiti. Fourth, it shows a contempt for the legislative process. This language was not even considered by the subcommittee or the full Committee on the Judiciary. We bring it out here and we look at it here on the floor. By the seat of the pants we are coming up with definitions that we want to put into the Constitution. For example, what does ``de minimis'' mean? We say, well, how about 0.1 percent of the Federal budget? What kind of constitutional definition is that? We do not even know how many years we should measure whether the revenue is de minimis or not, or whether user fees would apply. There are all kinds of issues that have not even been adequately considered. The fact is that this is just pure political grandstanding. We are making politically expedient points at the cost of the integrity of this body. This is a bad amendment. we all ought to vote ``no'' on it.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. The only remaining remark I have to make is that we do not act independently here. We have a responsibility to act in the best interests of our constituents. The worst thing this legislation does is to take away the equal representation of our constituents, the American people. The vast majority of the American people will lose the right, the power to determine the legislation of this land. The vast majority of people, two-thirds of the American population, will not have equal representation if this legislation passed because one-third plus one will have the controlling power over what this body, this body of Representatives of the American people, is able to do with regard to tax policy, with regard to balancing the budget, with regard to funding the necessary means of conducting our activities in whatever sphere we are talking about. It is irresponsible. And it is unfair to the vast majority of the American people to pass this today.

Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend from Colorado for yielding to me and for his valiant efforts to resist the political temptation to vote for a constitutional amendment which is really little more than political grandstanding. Now there are any number of reasons that Members could choose to vote this down. They could vote it down because we already have a rule that requires a three-fifths vote to increase taxes and every time that it has applied to legislation the Committee on Rules has waived that rule. They could vote it down because it is bad public policy. It says essentially that whatever is in the Tax Code now stays because it is going to be almost impossible to change it. It is going to be impossible to close the corporate loopholes. Even things like capital gains reductions which are expected to increase revenue would be in violation of this legislation which says that--a piece of legislation that increases revenues by more than a de minimis amount requires a two-thirds vote. They could vote it down because this debate has already occurred. This debate took place during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Article IX of the Articles of Confederation required a supermajority vote to increase taxes, and it was found that it did not work. So they had to go back. They had to correct it because they realized that on a tough vote it is hard enough to get a majority of Members to do the courageous and right thing, let alone two-thirds of the body.

Mr. MORAN. I would underscore the point that my friend from Colorado has been making. We ought not be flying blind on legislation to amend the Constitution of the United States, not even knowing what the terms mean, not even getting it out of subcommittee or having consideration by the full committee, bringing it to the floor. A lot of concepts have been around for a long time, but most of them the majority would never consider bringing to the floor without having full consideration by people, both Members and staff, to be able to look at this legislation, to understand what these terms mean, to be able to inform the Members so that they know what they are voting on. That is the first flaw. This morning I had a little debate on a morning news show with Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, who came up with this idea and has been promoting it, and he made the same point that our colleague from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg, has made with regard to the number of States, and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, I know, has made it, who have these kinds of supermajority requirements. But let me suggest there are some differences between those State budgets and the constraints they are under and the Federal budget. For one thing, States can borrow money, and most States do. Most States are able to get their capital money through long-term indebtedness. We cannot do that. We are on a pay-as-you-go basis. We have a current cash accounting system. Another thing that States can do that we cannot do is go to the Federal Government as a funder of last resort. Look what happened in California, and I think Arizona was involved, any number of other States have been involved actually this year in any number of natural disasters. Florida. I will not list the whole number of States, but a great many States were victims of natural disasters this year. They did not have the money in their budget. With some of them they did not have the money because it would have been too difficult to raise the revenue necessary, so they turned to the U.S. Government to fund the costs of repairing and rebuilding. We have no one to turn to. In fact, I understand there is an exception: If war has been declared, then you can raise money. But there are any number of other things that could happen to this country that would necessitate us raising substantial revenue for the public good, the common good of this country. We do not know what is going to happen in the future, and it may be a whole lot of these disasters that might occur at the same time. It may necessitate us raising revenue. But to think that 17 States that represent 10 percent of the population have the ability to thwart our responsibility to fund the needs of this country, those States may very well not experience a natural disaster, so it would be in the interest of those particular Senators and Members of Congress not to vote for that revenue raising. But certainly if a majority of this body and the Senate thinks that it is necessary and is willing to show the political courage to vote to raise revenue for the common good of this country, then they ought to be able to do so and should not be thwarted, should not have their vote minimized, de minimized, if you would, by this legislation. That is exactly what this constitutional amendment would do.

Mr. MORAN. I think obviously the answer lies in the question. It is not. It is an aberration of what our Founding Fathers intended, and I think this is a terribly important point. You know, if I were a lobbyist for a corporation that was using a loophole to get billions of dollars of tax preferences, and we can name any number of them, I do not think we need to be specific, but we know that there are about $400 billion of tax preferences in our Tax Code where people can make a legitimate argument of uneven treatment. But if I were a corporation or a wealthy individual; for example, if I was one of these very wealthy individuals who decided that I did not want to pay taxes on gains I had made in this country, so I denounced my citizenship and decided I am going to claim my citizenship offshore, some island or whatever, and even though I can still live here 6 months, or 1 day less than 6 months, or whatever the law is, I would know the law, and in fact I do not have to change my standard of living or my annual vacation plans, I just decide I am no longer an U.S. citizen. I denounce my citizenship, I live someplace else and, thus, save billions of dollars in total on gains made in this United States. We tried to get--and I will just finish this statement--we tried to get legislation through that would have saved $3.6 billion over 10 years just from a handful of wealthy families who denounced their American citizenship. We could not change that, we could not do the people's will to make them pay taxes on gains incurred in this country because all they would have to do is to go after those few folk over in the Senate, if they could not do it in the House, and, simply, they do not have to deal with the majority, with 67 percent. All they have to do is deal with one-third, and focus on them, and thwart the will of the majority.

Mr. MORAN. I might remind the gentleman from Texas that one of the reasons why we are the strongest military power is that we spent money that we did not have, particularly during the 1980's. But what I think is more important to remind the gentleman is that none of the budget reconciliation measures proposed by President Reagan would have passed during the 1980's. None of them got two-thirds of a vote. There is only one budget reconciliation measure, which was a minor one, in 1989 that passed with more than two-thirds. But it passed because it was minor. It was an easy vote. These others were not easy votes. It is never an easy vote to balance the budget, to come even closer to balancing the budget than we are doing today. It certainly was not an easy vote to vote for the budget reconciliation measure in 1993, even though it raised money from the top 1.2 percent of Americans and, in fact, through any number of other measures actually reduced our deficit for 3 years in a row, generated over $500 billion of deficit reduction. That passed, as was suggested. If one Member of Congress had switched their vote, it would not have passed. Now if you think that any responsible budget balancing measure is going to get through this House with a two-thirds requirement, you do not understand the dynamics of politics in America today. But that does not mean that we should not try to be, to propose votes that will require political courage, to try to continue to work to balance our budget, to reduce the amount of indebtedness, to reduce that interest. If it was not for the interest on the debt created during the 1980's--because we cut taxes and did not cut expenditures, if it were not for the interest accumulated during that period of time--we would have a surplus in the budget today. We cannot raise taxes. We can cut them very easily. We can do it at the drop of an eyelid, and this is the kind of easy vote, to vote against the possibility of the Congress acting responsibly on budgetary and tax matters. But that is why it is wrong. It would be the irresponsible thing for the Members of this Congress to vote for today.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I have only five problems with the issue that was just discussed by the gentleman from Texas to require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. Actually, the language that would be made part of the Constitution says to make any change in internal revenue law would require two-thirds of this body voting in favor of it. Let me mention the five problems I have with it. The first is that it is a classic case of political posturing. The second is that it is bad public policy. The third is that it is fiscally irresponsible. The fourth is that it shows contempt for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. And the fifth is that it is very badly written. But other than those five problems, it is a fine piece of legislation, I suppose. Mr. Speaker, I have to say I think that this body would be shamed if we were to yield to the kind of political expediency that has brought it to the floor. Let me explain why it is such a classic case of political grandstanding. At the very beginning of this congressional session, when we began the Contract With America, there was a lot of hoopla over the fact that we, on the first day, passed a requirement that there would be a three-fifths vote requirement to raise income taxes. And those who voted for it took a lot of credit, of course, for doing so. But then when it was to apply to the legislation considered by this body, the majority got the Committee on Rules to waive that rule because they knew that those bills could not get three-fifths of the vote. So they did not let it apply to the so-called Tax Relief Act, to the Medicare Improvement Act, to the balanced budget resolution, or even to the health insurance reform legislation that we just recently passed. All of those bills included some increases in income tax. So for convenience sake, we simply waived the rules because the majority could not get three-fifths of the vote. But you cannot waive the Constitution. The fact is that none of the major bills that have gone a long ways toward addressing the Reagan debt that occurred during the 1980's because we kept cutting taxes and not cutting expenditures, we did the politically popular thing and not the politically unpalatable thing and created $3 trillion of debt. Well, almost all of those bills never would have come close to two- thirds vote. That is why I say it is political posturing. They assume that on the Senate side there will be a sufficient level of responsibility not to pass it. Of course on the Senate side, you have got a very interesting situation. Seventeen States, the least populous who represent only 10 percent of the population, are represented by, of course, 34 Senators. There are two Senators for every State. So those 17 States are represented by 34 Senators, which is just exactly the number you need to block the majority's will. All you need is one-third plus one. So those 34 Senators have within their power to stop any revenue changes to the tax law if this constitutional amendment were to pass. Ten percent can change the will of the majority of 90 percent. What kind of a situation is that in the world's greatest democracy? In fact, let me get to the issue with regard to recognizing the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Article IX of the Articles of Confederation required this kind of supermajority to increase revenue. It did not work. And so when they convened in 1787, the Constitutional Convention, James Madison and others had the courage to stand up and say, this is not what we meant by our democracy. When we have tough votes, they need to be majority votes. The minority should not be able to control or to void the will of the majority. That is what this kind of constitutional amendment would do. Mr. Speaker, it is also very bad public policy. If you want to make the tax system fairer, if you want to deal with the corporate and individual tax loopholes, if you want to change it into an income tax code that emphasizes savings and investment, you cannot do any of those things under this bill. It is bad public policy. It is hypocritical. It is inconsistent with the Constitution. I would hope my colleagues will vote this legislation down today.