Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I would urge that we vote against this rule, because veterans, every veteran is a former public servant, every veteran is a citizen, every veteran is a taxpayer. Veterans do not just care about their own benefit checks, they care about the Federal workers that have been locked out of their jobs that cannot provide Christmas for their families this week. They care about the other Americans who are denied services because the Government is shut down, and they care about the other taxpayers, taxpayers who will pay out, as of today, $900 million to Federal employees to not work. Federal employees want to be on the job, and yet every Republican on the Committee on Rules voted against an amendment that I offered that would let Federal employees go to work and then get paid subsequently, and those who chose not togo to work would not get reimbursed, but at least we would not be paying money for people not to work. I cannot believe we are creating this situation where we now are going to pay almost $1 billion for no work performed. We have an opportunity tonight to rectify an unconscionable situation, unconscionable to Federal employees, to taxpayers, to the entire American public. We ought to do it, do it now, add it to this rule. But without it being added to the rule, we ought to vote it down.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday at a press conference Speaker Gingrich indicated that there were a great many House Republicans who objected to paying Federal employees for not working. Fair enough. Federal employees do not want to get paid for not working. They want to work. We ought not repeat a situation where we paid out $750 million to Federal employees for not working. They should have been at work then, and they certainly should be at work now. There are two things the Speaker could do to rectify the situation. One, we have legislation we are trying to get to the floor that would keep Federal employees on the job and reimburse them subsequently when appropriation became available. The second thing to do is just what we did during the Reagan administration, the Bush administration, the Nixon administration and every administration prior. When we had a conflict between the executive and the legislative branches, you pass a clean continuing resolution at the lower of the House or Senate level. You keep the Government functioning. You do not hold Federal employees hostage. And that is what we are doing, and to do it at Christmastime is wrong. It is mean-spirited. I was in a school yesterday and the principal and teachers came up and said, ``You know, these children are not happy like they should be at Christmas time. Their parents are fighting, their parents do not know what the future holds, they are not buying Christmas presents.'' We have ruined their Christmas, and it is wrong.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned President Reagan, and think it is important to bear in mind that when we had a budget conflict in 1987 and 1988, between a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, what we did was to pass a continuing resolution that lasted all year long; a clean continuing resolution. But Federal employees were not made pawns in that process. There is no reason why Federal employees should be furloughed today. Yesterday, in a press conference, Speaker Gingrich indicated that those Federal employees may not even be paid at Christmas time. How unbelievable could this situation be that we would have families with children who are working for the American people, laid off, put on furlough just before Christmas, and told they may not even be paid during Christmas? But it is believable. We just fired 11 people that served this House in the well of the House, doing necessary work. They had built up compensatory time, because they worked late at night. But because we will have the same laws that apply to the private sector apply to us January 1, we fired them just before Christmas time so we would not have to compensate them. Talk about mean spiritedness.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished ranking minority member of this subcommittee from Ohio, who I may also say is a good friend, and I thank him for his thoroughness and fairness as well. The gentleman is someone Judge Bryan would greatly enjoy and respect. I want to thank my good friend as well, the very distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest]. The gentleman does a wonderful job representing his constituency, but also the interests not only under his subcommittee, but of the country, and has done the kind of terrific work, particularly in the environmental area, which is just what Judge Bryan would care about. In his 37 years on the Federal bench, Judge Bryan built a record as a legal conservative and a strict constructionist. That is why he was able to bring about the very dramatic changes in terms of school desegregation in Virginia, because of the respect that he had earned throughout his career. He was renowned for his fairness, his firmness, and his thoroughness. As has been said, of the 322 opinions written as a Circuit Judge and the 18 opinions written as a U.S. District Judge, he was reversed in only four cases. That is a record that very, very few can equal. His colleagues knew him as a courtly, conservative Virginia gentleman, whose personal style was low-key, modest and polite, often with a dry wit. According to his son, U.S. District Judge Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Judge Bryan, Sr., thought of the court as a jewel of the Constitution. Following through on the jewel metaphor, the Washington Post editorial that marked the death of Judge Bryan stated: that those who knew the senior Judge Bryan might well add that this appraisal came from an expert who valued that gem and protected it with integrity and eloquence. With great reverence and pride, I am very pleased to be part of something that would have mattered a great deal to him, to have his name on a Federal Courthouse. I know it matters a great deal to his family and to the community that he served. That courthouse will open next month. I hope the distinguished gentleman from Maryland and the distinguished gentleman from Ohio can join us, if they can, and even the very distinguished staff. If they can make it, we would love to have join us. I very much appreciate this legislation going forward today.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why 215 Members of this body just voted to go on a 3-day recess. We all want to be back with our children and our wives and do some Christmas shopping and get back to a little sense of normalcy. But things are not normal. If we do not do our job today, 300,000 Federal employees will be locked out of their jobs, the Government will be shut down, and we just voted yesterday to put our Federal Government into default in its financial obligations. Things are not normal. We ought not go home for recess. In fact, that is why 152 Democrats voted not to. We have been told by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], that we should be prepared to stay on the job until we have done our job, until the Government is back in business. We might rectify this situation with a continuing resolution today, legislation the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has introduced that would at least ensure that Federal employees work for their pay. But we have got to get the Government back in business and do our job before we recess or adjourn.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the majority leader, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], and myself and several others have proposed legislation that we understand was acceptable to the leadership that would avoid a situation that occurred last time we had a Government shutdown with Federal employees, where Federal employees were paid for not working. This legislation would ensure that at least they work and then be subsequently reimbursed. We understood that that might be put on an expeditious track. Could the gentleman clarify that situation and give us some idea whether we would be able to expect that?

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, with regard to this bill, I want to rise in support of the extension of the au pair program for 2 more years under the auspices of the United States Information Agency. I know that this is a minor issue in the context of a much more important issue with regard to the Government shutdown, but many Members have asked us to bring forward this bill. The program, a very successful cultural program, not only benefits young people wishing to learn more about the United States, but it benefits also a great many families throughout the country in providing important child care and the opportunity to learn from the au pair about the traditions and cultural differences in their home country. Now, I understand that Mr. Johnston and others have some concern over whether this is a family-friendly measure, with some very attractive au pairs coming from Scandinavian countries, particularly. I do not think that is a particular reason to oppose the legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we pass this legislation today because it would expire otherwise. We have many families across the country that have been left hanging, waiting for their au pair to arrive, so they are trying to find temporary child care, hoping that it will not have a negative impact on their children. Many families, particularly with two parents working, are struggling to make ends meet and are dependent upon these au pairs. The visas cannot be issued to these young people until Congress passes this legislation. It is really not fair to them in other European allied countries that have tried to participate in this program months ago to have their visas held because of congressional inaction. They leave their jobs, they move from their apartments when they are accepted into the program. So I would urge my colleagues to support this bill to extend the au pair program and stop the uncertainty facing many American families. I understand there is greater uncertainty facing a greater number of families that I would hope we could deal with as well, but there is no reason to object to this legislation, and I would urge its consideration and passage.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that was the purpose for making it an inquiry rather than a speech: to determine why it occurred. I hope we can get some further light on the issue. I think it is a serious one.

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an inquiry of the Speaker or anyone knowledgeable of the issue to clarify it, because there is a good deal of concern on the part of Members on both sides of the aisle over the status of 11 people who served all of the Members of this body in a nonpartisan way, and who, we understand, have been fired without advance notice just before Christmastime. I do not think it is a partisan issue, but it is something that affects all of us, because these are people who are responsible for the tallying, for the enrollment of bills, for checking the accuracy of the bills; and the only common bond we can find among those people that have been peremptorily fired is that they had accumulated a substantial amount of compensatory time. Since this body will have to abide by all of the private sector laws as of January 1, we would be responsible for compensating these people for the compensatory time they built up for working late hours when we are still in session. Mr. Speaker, if that is the common bond that caused their firing, then I think it would be helpful for all of us to understand, because this affects the ability of all of the Members of this body to carry out their functions and to make sure that no mistakes are made in the wording of the bills, and that the tally of the votes, and so on is accurate. Mr. Speaker, I also think that it reflects on all of the Members of this body if we fire our own employees just before Christmastime for a reason that does not seem consistent with the values--the family values and the integrity--of this House. Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] has risen, the chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, and perhaps he would respond.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is fraught with problems that we would only recognize if it were to be enacted. I trust it will never be enacted. Let me explain some of the specific problems. There are two sections. One does seem moot because the White House and the Congress both agree we ought not to be using Social Security trust funds. It really is not an issue, except that if we do go into default, I do not see how we can pay benefits to Social Security retirees or to Federal Government retirees. That goes to the fact that there is no way to give preferential status to Government debt instruments to be able to determine whether some relate to the Social Security trust fund, some relate to the Federal Government, Federal retirees trust fund, and some are general Government debt obligations. There is no system to do that, so to obey the law we would have to reject all Federal debt instruments as they become due. The other section, the section that deals with the Federal retirement trust funds, is the biggest problem. I think it is important to bear in mind the context of this. This is legislation that was requested by the Reagan administration. It was signed into law by President Reagan because it was a prudent financial management instrument to ensure that we do not create chaos in the domestic and international financial markets. It is a way to manage the debt at a time of political crisis. We have a time of political crisis, even though the other side has in fact voted twice now to increase the debt ceiling. That is not at issue, that we need to increase the debt ceiling. The problem is that they want it attached to a 7-year balanced budget and other changes in other laws that are really not directly related to the debt ceiling. Mr. Speaker, if we were to pass this, we would immediately go into default. This $54 billion in Treasury bills that mature today, we would not be able to make good on those bills if this were law today. There is $58 billion on December 21 and $36 billion on the 28th of December. We cannot pass this. It would be the most irresponsible thing we could do to the people of this country, particularly those that own Treasury bills, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, we all know that Americans are living longer, and they are living longer with chronic and often incapacitating illness. For many of them, nursing home care is the only option. It is a difficult and painful choice, not one that any individual or family would take lightly, particularly given the cost of nursing home care. Mr. Speaker, in northern Virginia, in the district I represent, the average cost of nursing home care is $45,000 per year. So the State of Virginia has been very stringent in determining Medicaid eligibility. That is why this is relevant to the discussion that just took place. Without the cuts to the Virginia Medicaid program, Virginia would be providing 54,000 individuals with access to home and community-based care, 24,300 nursing home recipients, and 2,300 individuals in intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded. But in the face of the Medigrant Program, which caps Medicaid long- term care spending as soon as 1996, next year, $968 million, or 27 percent of the budget for long-term care in the State of Virginia by the year 2002 would be cut. That translates into a reduction of 9,000 people who would no longer be eligible for assistance next year, and 37,000 nursing home residents who would no longer be eligible for care in 2002. We have to ask ourselves, where would these people end up? In 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed into law Federal standards for nursing homes. This was a direct consequence of the in ability of the States to establish standards and monitor and enforce them. The newspapers were filled with horrible accounts of abuse of our Nation's seniors. That is why President Reagan responded to the abuse that was taking place across the country. This Medigrant Program turns back the clock. It turns the responsibility of establishing, monitoring, and enforcing nursing home standards back to the States. Clearly President Reagan would not have usurped that responsibility if there were any alternative way of ensuring quality care for our Nation's seniors. All families with members needing long-term care have been paying for many years to care for their parent or child at home. In the end, their ability to care for that person, both physically, emotionally or financially, runs out. In my district, the eligibility requirements to receive Medicaid assistance for long-term care are already very stringent. Thirty-four percent of all Medicaid dollars are spent on long-term care assistance. This is considerably lower than the national average. But once an individual is determined to be eligible, the State does not come after the adult children to pay for nursing home care. This legislation included in the 7-year balanced budget plan, the Medigrant legislation, empowers States to require payments from adult children if the family income is above the State median, regardless of other financial obligations. Governor Bush said, and I want to quote him, ``I plan to go after all adult children of nursing home residents.'' Many allude to middle-class seniors divesting their fortunes in order to qualify for Medicaid, but the anecdotes do not add up. The GAO found in a 1993 study that less than 10 percent of all Medicaid applicants had transferred their assets in order to qualify for assistance, but even that did not result in increased Medicaid spending. Furthermore, Congress changed the law in 1993, requiring that Medicaid eligibility could not be considered within 3 years of the asset transfer. In 1993, Congress required States to recover from the estate of deceased Medicaid beneficiaries. It did not require the seizure of homes or businesses, and it even prohibited such actions if the home was being lived in by a spouse. Current law also protects against liens and estate recovery while dependent children are living. But Medigrant repeals these protections. The Medigrant bill empowers States to pursue family homes to recover long-term care expenses, even if those homes are currently occupied by families members. All that protection is repealed. Mr. Speaker, I will not take any more time. There is so much more that I could say about this. It is all of a critical nature, because we are taking away the security that is currently available to families who desperately need it. We are enabling States to go after homes, to seize assets, no matter how impoverished the spouse might be, to take away the standards that President Reagan put into place to protect our senior citizens. This goes far beyond the dollars and cents. I think this is a profound erosion of the kind of security that Americans have come to, and should be able to, expect. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to express this on the floor today, and I would hope we are going to turn this back. The Medigrant Program repeals protection for the spouses and children of nursing home residents. Medigrant gives States the flexibility to deny coverage. Income and resource set-asides for the spouse of a nursing home resident have been maintained in Medigrant, but these are only available after a resident has been found eligible for coverage. Under Medigrant, there is no assurance of coverage even if you meet income and resource standards; no required fair hearing to challenge a determination of noncoverage; no protection against having a lien placed on the home; no requirement for clarity about what is included in the Medigrant rate; no requirement that Medigrant cover a specific set of services; and no allowance for putting aside money for a disabled child. I have been told that Medigrant requires States to set-aside considerable resources for nursing care services. Although the amount Medigrant requires to be set aside for the elderly is based upon expenditures for current nursing home services, nothing in law requires such services to be offered. The funds set aside are considerably less than what Medicaid sets aside today. In fact, a number of studies have suggested that the first cuts will be made on community and home based long-term care, forcing disabled and frail elderly to apply for the much more costly nursing home care. Why? Because the nursing home industry is much stronger and financially able to lobby for dollars than the burgeoning community based care community. The block grants are capped, regardless of economic or demographic changes. The rate of growth will not keep pace with inflation or increased use due to an aging population. The bill, on average, increase spending at 5.2 percent a year, while long-term care spending will increase at about 9.5 percent a year. Virginia is particularly hard hit because of the aging of the population. Residents older than 65 years will increase from 7.3 to 15.7 percent of the total population. In the next 15 years, there will be five times as many Virginians older than 75 and nine times as many Virginians older than 85 years as there were in 1960. This Nation made a commitment 30 years ago to investing in medical technology and medical assistance to extend and improve the lives of senior citizens. Assistance for long-term care is the humane extension of medical intervention and assistance. Those who seek long-term care are seeking to complete their lives with dignity, as independently as possible and certainly, not as a financial burden on their children or grandchildren. The Medigrant bill takes away this dignity from those who need long-term care and from their families. How the Medicaid Cuts Affect Virginia Issue: The current proposed block grant for the Medicaid program relies on a formula which rests on the current federal match now received by each state. This unfairly penalizes Virginia, because it locks in current funding patterns among the states, regardless of need or changing demographic patterns, while high cost states that have not been efficient or judicious with their Medicaid dollars will continue to benefit at high levels of federal assistance. Congressional proposals do little to address vast disparities in federal Medicaid grants to the states. Both lock in generous payments to some states at the expense of others. Under both plans, New Hampshire and Connecticut would get twice as much per poor person as Virginia. Under both proposals, Virginia will continue to have the seventh lowest grant per poor person in 2002. (Poor is defined as those in families earning 100% or less of the federal poverty level, which is $11,817 for a family of three in 1995). History: Virginia has been very conservative in its determination of program eligibility and benefits; management of Medicaid dollars and beneficiaries; and in its claim on federal resources. Viriginia has the seventh lowest federal grant per person in poverty. Virginia is below the national average in state Medicaid spending per beneficiary. 75% of its Medicaid expenditures are on mandatory services and 25% are on optional services . . . this is below the national average. (States must offer a minimum acute care benefit package to their eligible populations. They can cover other acute services at their discretion. States vary widely in their coverage of optional acute services.) Virginia has established tight eligibility standards. Thus, although Virginia has a higher poverty rate than Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island (and closely trails New York), Virginia covers less than half of its poor residents in Medicaid, while these other states have enrolled 60-90% of their poor. disproportationate share payments to hospitals In the early 1990's, some states aggressively pursued DSH money in order to leverage more federal dollars. DSH payments were intended to help hospitals serving high volumes of uninsured and Medicaid patients. They did this by adding money generated from hospital assessments and ``voluntary payments'' from hospitals and adding that to state funds, in order to leverage more federal matching funds, and then paid back that money to those hospitals. Until these schemes were controlled in 1993, many states received huge amounts of federal Medicaid dollars, which they spent on general state needs. Two-thirds of DSH spending is concentrated in 8 states. DSH payments to Northeast high cost states are 6- 16 times higher than in Virginia. Virginia chose not to participate in aggressively capturing DSH dollars, as they felt it was an inappropriate use of federal funds. The proposed Medicaid block grants lock the DSH inequities into place, leaving Virginia with only a small amount of DSH funds. Those states like NH, LA, NY, CT, NJ, will continue to receive significant DSH dollars under the block grant. Demographics The block grant does not take into consideration the changing demographic trends in Virginia. The population is aging and the percentage of older Americans moving into Virginia from other states is increasing. By 2020, the total population of VA. will number 8.4 million, up from 6.5 million in 1990. The elderly are the fastest growing segment of the population. Residents older than 65 will increase from 7.3% to 15.7% of the total population. There will be five times as many Virginians older than 75 and nine times as many Virginians older than 85 as there were in 1960. The elderly are the heaviest users of health care; it is reasonable to assume a growing percentage of this population will become Medicaid-dependent for nursing home care and other long term care services at an increasingly high cost. what has the state done to maximize its medicaid dollars? Virginia has implemented a number of cost containment techniques to improve ``efficiency'' of the Medicaid program. The Va. Dept. of Medical Assistance estimated in 1994 that since 1982, Virginia has realized about $217 million dollars annually in savings and cost avoidance through cost containment measures including: Medicaid managed care Moratorium on nursing home construction Limits on inpatient hospital admission before non-emergency surgery Expanded use of generic drugs Utilization management for hospital and other services Preadmission screening for nursing home applicants Adult day care alternatives to nursing home placement 24-hour obstetric discharge using a home health alternative As a result of improved efficiency, Virginia has not required continued large increases in federal matching dollars. Yet, the state will be penalized for prudent and judicious use of Medicaid money. Those states with inefficiently run programs that are high cost to the federal government, including those states that illegally garnered DSH dollars, will continue to receive the highest contribution. The current Medicaid program is flexible enough to allow Va. to receive more federal dollars as the needs and available resources change. The proposed block grant proposal bases consideration of future federal funding on current levels, regardless of each state's future needs. What should be incorporated into the Medicaid block grant is an effort to move all states to an equitable level of federal financial support per capita. That is not unlike the policy in place for the Medicare program. When that program moved from a cost-based reimbursement to reimbursement by diagnosis-related group, formerly vastly different rates paid to providers were moved to a national rate adjusted only by the special labor costs within regions. This uniformly provides the same incentives to all states to operate efficient Medicaid programs.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are defining who America is and who we will be in the 21st century. Clearly we are a blessed Nation, protected on both sides by oceans, rich with natural resources, and, more importantly, rich with the diversity of immigrants driven by their pioneer spirit. But to whom much is given, much must be expected. The Bosnians have cried out for American involvement for three and a half years, partly because we have more military capability than all the nations of Europe combined. But, far more importantly, they look to us because of our heroic character because they know that it was America's heart that saved Europe's soul; because they know that it was our grandfathers and our fathers who were willing to risk their lives, not for any selfish materialistic cause, but for the noblest of reasons, for the cause of human freedom, democracy, justice, and religious and ethnic tolerance. It is precisely these same cause that are at stake in Bosnia today. We should not, in fact, we must not, profane the legacy of our grandfathers who saved Europe in World War I, or the legacy of our fathers who saved Europe from fascism in World War II and then set up NATO to prevent a World War III. But we would profane their legacy if we let the affluence and the comfortable security that their sacrifice has brought us weaken our resolve to uphold the principles that still define America. Heroic leaders do not shrink from their moral instincts because their own personal security is not directly threatened. They act when they know that only they can make a difference. They act, because it is the right and the principled thing to do. After a quarter of a million people have been slaughtered, 40,000 women have been raped, and 2.8 million people have been driven from their homes, it is the right and the principled thing to do to put a stop to this ethnic cleansing, the slaughter that will clearly continue, unless America shows its heroic character once again. Our troops are the clear expression of our national heroic character, and that is why we should support them by voting for the Hamilton resolution.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a long time friend and constituent of mine, Lt. Comdr. Peter R. McCarthy, USMC, retired. He has made an excellent transition from a Marine officer to a private sector businessman, providing continued support to the military, much of which is on a pro bono basis. His philosophy is simply to pass on to the next generation for their benefit, all of the professional transition knowledge and know how that he has gained. He has been highly successful in this regard. I am placing in the Record an article describing his efforts which appeared in a recent Washington Post Sunday magazine. [From the Washington Post, June 11, 1995] Basic Retraining (By Brigid Schultz) ``In the '60s, '70s and '80s you could carpet-bomb the marketplace with resumes and get a response.'' Peter McCarthy is conducting a briefing. ``You could shoot a shotgun in the sky and ducks would come down.'' His voice is loud though his audience is small. ``You could spray machine-gun fire and you'd get a hit.'' Eight officers are sitting posture-perfect behind oversize cards with names like Warren, Dick and Mark scrawled in big letters. ``Today you've got to be an Olympic rifle shooter.'' McCarthy's voice quiets and his face grows stern. ``You've only got two magazines.'' He slams an imaginary cartridge into an imaginary rifle and holds it to his shoulder. He squints one eye, takes a step forward and aims. ``You pick your targets, and boom!'' He pulls an imaginary trigger. ``Into the black. boom!'' He fires again. ``Into the black. Every time.'' The officers--seven men and one woman--nod solemnly. They have reported to this room at the Radisson Executive Retreat Center in Alexandria expecting grim news, and they are getting it. The U.S. military is downsizing. These officers-- Army colonels, Marine Corps majors and Navy captains--will be among those to go. They have come to learn how to search for a job. As McCarthy's report sinks in, some of them twist their bulbous service-academy rings and stare out the window. ``P and L.'' He is pacing in front of them. He served in the Marine Corps for 20 years, some of them in Vietnam. ``To you, that has meant professionalism and loyalty. But in the private sector, it's the 23rd of December, you've got a number of kids, and on your desk you find a pink slip. There's P and L for you: profit and loss. A knife in the back. . . You guys are so used to knowing who's in the next foxhole, counting on him, that you've got a built-in naivete.'' McCarthy has made his own foray into the private sector as a consultant specializing in helping service personnel cross to the other side. Many of them have been in uniform since the day they got out of school. Most of them are only in their forties. After 20 years in, they can draw a pension of half their base pay; for people with children and mortgages, that isn't enough. Civilian firms are eliminating the middle- management jobs for which they would be best suited. ``There's a psychological bridge between you and the private sector. At the top of the bridge is a granite wall 12 feet high and 12 feet thick. Once you walk over that bridge, it's a whole different culture. . .'' The first lesson is in ``creative research.'' Before the officers arrived, they were asked to fill out a form titled ``Understanding You.'' McCarthy asks them to identify their hidden skills, assets and interests that may translate to a civilian enterprise. ``If you were recruiters, you're great salesmen,'' he says. The group brainstorms about growing opportunities in law enforcement, leisure, finance. ``Child- abuse counseling seems to be a growth industry,'' offers one Marine colonel. McCarthy hands out a reading list: Age Wave, Megatrends 2000, Powershift, What Color is Your Parachute? For the ``primary attack,'' he says, you have to research companies, figure out what they need and tailor your resume, appearance and demeanor to fit. But don't be too hasty: Get your act together first. ``Look, you're a battleship heading up this way.'' He draws a pencil-shaped ship steaming head-on toward enemy targets. ``I don't want you to fire now. You've got one gun firing at the target. Instead, I want you to come here.'' He positions the ship closer to the target and swings it around, broadside. ``Fire all your guns at all the targets. Mass your fire, just like a column of artillery. Get ready get organized and--boom!'' Networking is next. McCarthy tells them to run their friends, family, neighbors and acquaintances as if they were intelligence agents, using them as ``listening posts'' doing ``recon'' on the marketplace. Their ``secondary attack'' is to ``explode'' these ``intel'' networks, adding more and more listening posts to report back to them. Then, resumes. McCarthy tells them not to use acronyms like CINCEUR and JIB and LANTCOM. Instead of saying Marine Corps, say ``large international organization.'' He turns to the board and begins writing an outline: Situation. Goals. Parameters. Execution. Administration. Control. ``This look familiar to you guys?'' Relief washes over their faces. ``This plan was used by Moses to cross the desert, by Arthur Andersen to expand globally, and by Norman Schwarzkopf to go into Kuwait.'' It is the field order that the military uses for combat and just about every other situation. McCarthy takes them through it point by point, and after ``Control,'' he also asks them to add a ``love statement''--family considerations. After lunch, the officers study how to dress. For this representative of Nordstrom has been enlisted to outfit some mannequins with dark blue and gray suit coats, red patterned ties and braces. McCarthy shows off his own Hickey-Freeman suit and wingtips. They start with the basics: Never wear a brown or olive suit to an interview. Never wear a plastic running watch. Do wear pressed French cuffs with gold cuff links, but skip the monogram. Do wear natural fibers . . . The officers are scribbling in their briefing books. . . . Never wear pilot's glasses or shoulder pads. Always wear over-the-calf socks. Unbutton your suit coat when you sit down so the collar doesn't ride up. Get used to clothes that fit more loosely than your uniform. Do not accent your new suit with Corfam military shoes. Next, interviewing. McCarthy's first advice is to scope out where you're going the day before. ``It's just like in an operation. I can remember in Vietnam, if you could go out and helicopter along the line--you're been out there, you've seen it, it makes you more comfortable when going out on attack.'' And loosen up: No more yes sir, no ma'am. Get rid of the 82nd Airborne Shuffle or the Eighth & I Walk. ``You're no longer the captain of the fleet on the bridge. You need to soften up.'' But not too much: ``They may be waiting to hear your spouse say, `Joe's worked so hard in the Army, he's ready to take his pack off.'' Recon your interviewer. Maybe he protested against the Vietnam War. Maybe she thinks military personnel are automatons. ``Assess the situation, suck up to the ego if you have to. You guys are flexible enough to adjust, because that's what you do on the battlefield.'' He closes the seminar day with tips on writing thank-you notes and negotiating compensation. The officers have two more days of this to go, and already they look worn out.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call my colleagues attention to the passing of a great American--Mrs. Geraldine Barbara Posner. Mrs. Posner served in the Air Force Nurse Corps and was among the first to land at Normandy. After returning from the war, she continued her education and served as a training supervisor for the D.C. Department of Human Resources. Mrs. Posner was a beloved constituent and a patriot. Please join with me in honoring her memory. Geraldine Barbara Posner Geraldine Barbara Posner, 73, a former captain in the Air Force Nurse Corps and a retired nurse in-service training supervisor for the D.C. Department of Human Resources, died of cancer Sept. 28 at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. Capt. Posner, who lived in Alexandria, entered the Army Nurse Corps in 1944 and, after basic training, landed on Normandy beaches shortly after D-Day, setting up combat field hospitals. After World War II, she was assigned to various military hospitals and received a commission in the Air Force in 1948. A native of Brooklyn, N.Y., she received a diploma in nursing from Mercy Hospital in Springfield, Mass. After leaving the military in 1952, she received a nursing degree from Adelphi University in New York. She also took postgraduate nursing courses at Hofstra College before settling in the Washington area in 1960. She began a seven-year career with the D.C. Department of Human Resources in 1970. Survivors include her husband, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack I. Posner of Alexandria; three daughters, Geraldine A. Porter of Marshall, Va., Air Force Maj. Jacqueline B. Posner of Alexandria and Ginnean C. Quisenberry of Enterprise, Ala.; two sons, Air Force Lt. Col. John D. Posner of Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla.; and Air Force Capt. Joseph R. Posner of Robins Air Force Base, Ga.; three sisters, Carol Fleury of Holyoke, Mass., Janice Devine of Ware, Mass., and Lorraine Curley of Centerville, Mass.; and three grandchildren.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, in a couple of days, on December 1, Romania will celebrate its national day of independence. This 1995 celebration will mark the 77th time the people of that nation have commemorated the founding of their country. Unlike many of the past national days, however, Romania's celebration this year is one that is full of hope for the future. As many of my colleagues know, earlier this fall, Romania's President, Ion Iliescu, came to Washington to meet with President Clinton. He also met with a number of our colleagues here in the House. The message he carried was simple. Romania is irrevocably marching down the path toward a democratic political system and a free-market economy. This march has not been an easy one--reversing 40 years of communist rule is difficult. Romanians have borne real economic hardship since the 1989 revolution that overthrew the dictator Ceausescu. Nevertheless, major economic indicators for a healthy Romanian economy appear auspicious. Inflation is expected to be only 29 percent this year, less than half the 1994 rate. There has been more foreign investment, including U.S. investment, during the first 6 months of 1995 than there was in all of the previous 4 years. The agricultural sector, the first sector to benefit from privatization, has produced an almost record crop of wheat, allowing Romania to be a net grain exporter for the first time in years. A new stock exchange has opened, drawing capital to Romania, and the government has initiated a comprehensive privatizaiton scheme empowering individual Romanians to become owners of the country's manufacturing sector. Taken together, these successes bode well for Romania's economic future--a future we are encouraging through our granting of most- favored-nation status to Romania and by extending to it the benefits of the Generalized System of Preferences Program. I urge my colleagues to join with me in extending our best wishes to the people of Romania on the occasion of their 77th--annual--day of independence. I also hope my colleagues join with me in acknowledging the progress Romania has made in meeting the twin goals of economic reform and political democratization. [[Page E 2263]]

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, Friday evening the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] directed an inappropriate remark at me for which he subsequently apologized. Unfortunately, I responded to that remark in an even less appropriate way by forcing Mr. Cunningham to leave the House floor with me and then instigating a physical confrontation outside the doors. I acted in a way that is unbecoming a Member of the Congress. If this were an athletic ring, a top gun Navy fighter pilot the size of Duke Cunningham would certainly have made for a fair fight of it. But we are supposed to be engaged in a battle of ideas, demonstrating to the American people and other countries how we settle our differences in a nonviolent way. Mr. Cunningham deserves an apology from me. I hereby offer one.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, it has now been a week. I appreciate the fact that the Speaker has committed to pay everyone who is not working, but are we committed to pay $1 billion for no work performance? The most commonsense thing to do is to include everyone in this bill we are passing now. Put them back to work, because they are getting paid anyway. Then take the lowest of the House or the Senate or the President's budget. That is the most commonsense thing to do. We ought to start acting with commonsense.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I think there are five compelling reasons to reject this bill tonight. The first is that it is at least inconsistent, at worst hypocritical to make our foreign policy based upon the party affiliation of our Commander in Chief. In other words, I do think this bill is politically suspect in its motivation. But, second, for nearly a year now, the President under secretary----

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, let me share with my colleagues four reasons why we are to reject this bill. The first of those four is that the President and Secretary of State have publicly and clearly stated for almost a year now that in the event a peace agreement is reached and only in that event we should be prepared to commit approximately 25,000 U.S. troops to that effort. This is a strange time to be questioning that publicly, clearly stated commitment. The third issue is that this is as much about the viability and credibility of NATO as it is about the salvation of Bosnia. It is the United States that gave birth to and nurtured NATO, and it worked, as the billions of dollars and the thousands of troops we committed to NATO were worth it. It is now our responsibility to continue to be a fully participating member of NATO. It is surely beneath this great Nation to back out of our international commitments when it requires more than words and dollars and the safe positioning of troops in a peaceful country. The fourth reason is that there are over 2 million refugees scattered throughout Europe. They are a constant and serious threat to the long- term stability of our allies. That is a threat to our national security interest. The fifth reason, my colleagues, is the toughest one to argue because in the cynically political context that influences many of our decisions, it is difficult to make a case for doing something purely out of principle, regardless of the political consequences. But every nation in the world respects our commitment to principle. For many of them, it is their vision and ideal. The people of Bosnia looked to America as soon as Serbia fired its first shot on them and as soon as it invaded its first village. And throughout the mass execution and the mass rapes, they have cried out to us, but they have cried out not because we invest more in our military than all other nations of Europe combined, which we do. It is because they believe that we are the same nation that rose above the seductive rhetoric of isolationism and selfish interests and saved Europe, not once but twice. We who now control America's foreign policy and military actions must answer that cry and answer that question. With our vote tonight we will tell the world whether or not we are the same nation that they assume us to be. We owe it to our forefathers that risked and lost their lives in Europe for the cause of democracy, human rights, and religious and ethnic tolerance to continue to be that nation they fought and died for. That is why we must vote no tonight.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule because this rule is necessary to pass a continuing resolution, and a continuing resolution is necessary to get us back into the business of governing responsibly. We are not governing in a fiscally responsible manner when 800,000 Federal employees are sitting at home getting a paycheck, not being able to perform the work they need to perform. We are not governing in a morally responsible manner when 56,000 elderly people have already been unable to claim their social security and disability benefits, when more than 15,000 of America's veterans have not been able to file for their compensation, their pension and their education benefits, when more than a million people have tried to visit our national monuments and have not been able to because this Government has been shut down. That is not responsible. We are not doing our job. This continuing resolution, I grant you, is not as clean as we would like it, but the reality is that a 7-year budget is attainable. Sixty- eight Democrats voted for a budget that can be achieved without even making as severe domestic discretionary cuts as are in the President's budget. It is doable. One thing the President could do, it is up to him, if he believes that his forecasts are correct rather than CBO's, with the additional revenue that would come in from his economic revenue forecasts, that money can be used for tax cuts. But you do not pay out tax cuts when you are running at a deficit. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule and then of the continuing resolution.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution because it is time, Mr. Speaker, to put politics behind us. It is time to get back to the people's business. It is time to put 800,000 Federal employees back to work. It is time to be there for those 60,000 elderly and disabled persons and 15,000 veterans who have already been denied benefits that they are legally entitled to because there were no Federal employees to accept their claims. It is time to open up our national treasures to the 1\1/2\ million American families who have been turned away from their national parks and monuments because they have been shut down. My colleagues, it is time to balance our Federal budget. I personally do not think it is time to cut taxes because no business should pay out dividends when it is operating at a deficit. But the sooner we get to balance, the sooner we can reduce the American people's tax burden. Without his tax cuts, the President can reach his balanced budget objective in 7 years rather than 8 or 9 years. If, indeed, the President's higher economic forecasts are correct, then that additional revenue over and above the CBO forecast should be used to pay for the President's tax cut proposals. But first things first. Our very first responsibility is to vote for this continuing resolution and to put America's Government back into the business of serving America's people.